Safety Rules Will Be The Death Of Us All

So, would you consider yourself stupid for ignoring the fact that you are more likely to die in a car accident than any other way?  You are ignoring that FACT.  The SCIENCE shows it.  Yet you have decided to engage in the behavior anyway.

 

I don't have a problem with pitch counts in youth baseball.  I COMPLETELY agree that too much pitching at younger and younger ages is more than likely contributing to the number of arm injuries being seen today.  These kids are starting younger and younger and playing in an increasing amount of games.  There needs to be limits placed on them.  BUT, we are talking about children here.  Not capable of making those decisions.  

 

Helmets worn by base coaches is a different issue.  The numbers of people injured or killed due to not wearing a helmet while coaching a base are WAY smaller - infinitesimal - compared to the number of people injured or killed in car accidents.  Yet people are still given the option of whether or not they want to drive.  Why should base coaches - as adults - not be given the choice of whether or not they want to wear a helmet? Because someone decided that it would be safer for them?  I hold that this should be an individual's decision.

Not true.  Whether or not I wear a seat belt has NO bearing AT ALL on whether the accident happens or not.  If the accident happens, it happens.  Whether I die when it happens will not affect traffic patters, police response or any other public agency.  It will affect whether the ambulance leaves and takes me to the morgue or to the hospital.

 

What societal rights am I violating if I choose not to wear a seat belt???

 

That is not my point. I'll lay it out differently.

 

• Pitching is an injury risk. 
• Driving is an injury risk.
• Pitch counts help prevent injury. It's not perfect, but it's better.
• Wearing seat belts help prevent injury. It's not perfect, but it's better.
• Coaching first base is an injury risk (people have gotten KILLED by batted balls).
• Protective helmets help prevent injury. It's not perfect, but it's better.

 

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here. I don't really know how else to get my point across.

 

 

 

Well, this is not true at all.

It's not a question of whether the accident happens or  not, but a question of what the results are. A major injury requires first-responder and medical resources that  would otherwise be available for others.  Dead people often run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills that never get paid, increasing costs for everyone else.  They leave behind kids that require public assistance.  (if you don't like wearing a seat belt  I really doubt you're carrying enough life insurance)

 

Really, this is settled stuff.  Go to the CDC website and research it for yourself.

That's because your point is flawed JH.  Are these actions better?  More than likely - yes.  But does that mean that someone else has the right to tell me that I HAVE to do it, because in their mind it's the safer thing to do? - Emphatically - NO.  Does it make me more stupid because I choose to take that risk?  No, it just means that I am willing to take the risk despite what may be a better way of doing things.

 

The driving thing and the helmet thing are not different.  It is a matter of an individual looking at the facts, determining the amount of risk involved and deciding how much risk they are willing to take - for them personally.  Just because you are not willing to take that risk does not mean that I am stupid because I am willing to take that risk.  It just means that I have decided that other factors are more important to me than wearing that helmet.  Other factors are more important to me that make me choose to drive.  There is a risk - I am willing to take it.  So are you, when it comes to driving.

I never called anyone stupid. I called the decision to ignore facts stupid. Especially when the facts help prevent something so easily preventable. 

 

What if I survive and need to be put on life support and it costs thousands of dollars per day for 15-20 years to keep me alive?  Who could possibly afford that??  What happens to these medical bills?  Because I did wear a seat belt.  Maybe there should be a law that says if someone is injured and needs to be on life support, we should put them down because it costs society too much?  That's your logic with the seat belts.  It costs too much if someone dies in a wreck, so make them wear a seat belt.

 

Why don't we, as a society outlaw driving - because it causes more injuries and deaths than any other accidental death?  If we weren't allowed to drive, there would be NO deaths or injuries as a result of motor vehicle accidents.  So why are we still allowed to drive at all?

 

BTW, I do wear a seat belt.  It was coach2709 who doesn't.  I just don't agree with the principle of someone MAKING me wear one.

Then why do you drive JH?  Is it stupid to drive when tens of thousands of lives could be saved every year by not allowing people to drive?  My decisions are not necessarily stupid either.  I just consider other factors, weigh the risks and decide that I am willing to take that risk.  It may be stupid in your mind.  That does not necessarily make it a stupid decision.

 

Wow. No comment, at all. 

 

OK, I'm bowing out of the rest of this conversation. Have a nice day, folks.

 

 

You're spinning off into irrelevant hypotheticals. If you think in terms of millions of people rather than individuals you'll answer your own questions.

 

Thank you for buckling up.

And yet we want to make it a law (rule) that base coaches have to wear helmets so that we can save one life every 10 years (if that).  The logic just isn't there.  I'm sorry.

Why won't you answer my question about why you decide to ignore the science and facts and drive despite the risks that you are taking?  

 

I did already. In fact, I bulleted it. I don't know how to explain it any easier. Sorry. Have a nice day. This conversation is far beyond what I care to discuss pertaining to the game of baseball.

 

Yes, it does.

You did not bullet it.  You just said "driving is an injury risk".  Why do you choose to take that risk?  Science tells you that you could die doing it.  Do you just ignore that fact and do it anyway?  How is that logic any different than me seeing the statistics about getting hit in the head with a baseball and deciding to not wear a helmet anyway?

 

You weighed the risk vs reward of driving and decided to drive any way.

 

I weigh the risk and reward of wearing a helmet and decide not to wear one any way.

 

It doesn't mean either of us made a stupid decision.

Look, I think I have probably over stepped my bounds here a little.  I have probably made some over the top, reactionary comments.  Obviously, I feel strongly about individual freedoms.  I believe that's what this country was founded on.  I don't believe anyone here feels any differently, but it seems like there are different degrees of opinion on the matter.

 

I apologize if I offended anyone.  I think I'll step out now.  Nothing personal JH and I didn't mean to pick on you or call you out.  Unfortunately, I attempted to use you to make a point and I apologize to you for that.  Hope there are no hard feelings.

 

We may be better off keeping things baseball related.  You know what they say about politics and religion.  See you guys in another topic.

Sorry, bballman, but if you do die in a traffic crash you actually cause a severe cause and effect on traffic patterns due to a Traffic Homicide Investigation, which in return takes officers of the road to work the scene, which causes less officers to respond to calls in a timely manner, which may/may not lead to the po-po catching the guy(s) doing a home invasion at, oh let's say, possibly one of your family members houses(just an example) due to insufficient officer response to set and contain a perimeter.....all due to the fact you didn't have your seat belt on and greatly increased the risk of your death........So, in a nutshell, it greatly affects many many others

 

At what age do you think they can speak for themselves?

 

Suffice to say there's a lot of testosterone involved - ask any pitcher if they are tired or want to come out of the game.  If they have any competitive juices whatsoever - I know what the answer is.  Same goes for the coach - if he believes whomever is on the mound is his teams best shot at winning - well he wants that player out there - high pitch count or not.

 

As other threads have pointed out - a parent talking to a coach is not a "good idea". Could also result in less play time for the pitcher if a parent steps in. Whether a coach "listens" to the player or respects a players wishes varies greatly from what I've read, heard, and experienced. Unfortunately there are those that just ignore the player, so if you want to play and that's your only option (think Legion or High School), then you may be "stuck" in a situation. I will agree that throwing 100 pitches at 85MPH is probably more taxing on the arm than say 100 knuckleballs, so steadfast pitch count rules don't always seem smart. But I do think it's *very obvious* when a pitcher gets tired - he loses command and control (I see it many times from behind the plate). A "smart" coach can see this too, but yet others just refuse to recognize and then wonder why their pitchers have dead arms.

 

Last year my son threw over 140 in one game - I was not happy, but it is what it is. I knew he was up there, but I also knew it was probably his last outing of the season (winners bracket final in state legion tourney). His recovery from that outing took longer than his normal outings (90-110 pitches).  So there's a small sample for you that says there's some validity to the science.

I have not seen a study that said that injuries have been reduced because of pitch count rules.  Can you link this?

I have only seen that 'injuries are on the rise'.  I can link to dozens of articles saying so.

On May 2, 2014 Fleisig still says:

Glenn Fleisig, research director of the American Sports Medicine Institute in Birmingham, Ala., and the leading authority on pitching biomechanics. “But those of us who track this issue, we fear it is an epidemic. It certainly looks like more than a blip on the radar.”

At some point you have to say that pitch counts may not have been the cause (or at least the primary cause) and the rules are having little to no effect.

JohnF, I'm glad you brought the discussion back home to pitch counts, and to Bigger Papi's latest thoughts on the matter.

 

Due to increased levels of hormones, pride, and stubbornness, in some ways a 12yo has much better judgment than a 17yo. So I'm not buying the "speak for themselves"  argument.  

LOL.  Who do you think came up with LL's pitch count rules?  (well actually LL watered down the recommendations)  Why it was Glenn Fleisig and Dr. James Andrews of ASMI.

Exactly.  You see that you're proving my point, right?

 

ASMI came up with the pitch count rules, and years later, we still have an 'epidemic'.  I think we need a new vaccine.

True JCG.  The fact of the matter is that I don't believe there is a scientific study that shows that high pitch counts lead to injury.  My understanding of what ASMI found was that pitchers who wound up injured tended to have higher pitch counts AND threw harder than those that weren't injured.  It was more of a correlation finding than an actual scientific result showing that the higher pitch counts lead to injury.

 

It makes sense that the two are correlated and is probably a logical conclusion, but it really isn't a scientific biological or medical study showing it as fact.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and there is something else out there, but the above is true to my knowledge.

Nope, not in the least. Spell it out for me and talk real slow so I can understand it. 

 

But I'll give you a hint.  If only a relatively small percentage of at risk population took the vaccine, you'd have a tough time selling your call for a new vaccine. But we have been far enough afield with seatbelts. Let's skip to pitching and not vaccines.

 

You'll need to have numbers showing the difference in injury rates between players in various leagues and levels of baseball so that you can explain how the rules impacted specific groups of players and then you'll need to contrast those with players who were in leagues with no rules, and with players who played in multiple leagues.  Simple stuff really.  Have at it.

Well, IMO, I wonder if the injuries would actually be less if they were able to study kids who solely played LL and not TB.  It doesn't matter what "rule" or "recommendation" is put out there if the kids/parents/coaches play on multiple teams and don't follow common sense.  If the 12 yr old pitches his max limit at his Thur night LL game and then goes and throws again on Sat and Sun for his TB team....well, a few people should be slapped up side the head...IMO of course

Simple stuff really.  Have at it.

Pitch count rules should be reducing injuries. According to the rulemakers themselves, they are increasing.

It is really simple.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...oh man, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...wait, let me catch my breath, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

So what you're saying is that pitch count rules should prevent injuries in players who are not subject to pitch count rules.  And since the pitch count rules are not  helping players who do not play under those rules, they should be eliminated for all players.

 

Got it.  That makes perfect sense.  Thanks.

 

Over and out.

You should actually apologize and not just apologize 'if anyone was offended.'

 

So far, what i've heard from you is that you believe you should be able to do anything you want and screw over other people, which isn't much individual freedom as much as it is anarchy.

That's far from what I said.  I said the government was designed for national defense and to protect individuals or groups from harming others.  Ie, public safety.  I'm done with the argument, but I want to clarify what I have said.

 

Here's where I said it:

 

I read it before I posted the above.

       
       


You're right JCG. Part of the problem with the analysis of the effectiveness of pitch counts is that the only organization with actual pitch count limits is Little League, I believe. Most other organizations use inning limits with no mention of pitch counts. Hard to say they haven't worked when a very small percentage of the youth baseball world actually uses them. In fact most Little League players are also playing travel ball by the time they get to 12 years old. The only real way to see if pitch counts are effective would be if everone used them and players only played on one team so coaches could make sure they adhered to them. Until then, you really can't say, with certainty, that they are effective or not effective.

I don't think you are doing any harm by having them, but you can't say that they haven't worked because injuries continue to increase since Little League implemented the rule.

Originally Posted by bballman:

You're right JCG. Part of the problem with the analysis of the effectiveness of pitch counts is that the only organization with actual pitch count limits is Little League, I believe.

 

LLI is the 1^st organization people think about when they think about pitch counts being the limiting factor rather than innings, but there are a couple others, not nearly as big. Vermont has gone to them for HS ball, as has the PSAL in NY. Baseball Canada has imposed pitch count rules for the amateur players in the entire country. Cal Ripkin also has pitch count rules for its tournaments. I know there are others out there, but “normally” it’s the individual leagues in an organization or tournament directors who put them in. IOW, they are gaining in popularity, but are far from universal.

 

Most other organizations use inning limits with no mention of pitch counts. Hard to say they haven't worked when a very small percentage of the youth baseball world actually uses them. In fact most Little League players are also playing travel ball by the time they get to 12 years old. The only real way to see if pitch counts are effective would be if everone used them and players only played on one team so coaches could make sure they adhered to them. Until then, you really can't say, with certainty, that they are effective or not effective.

 

That’s about covers it.

I don't think you are doing any harm by having them, but you can't say that they haven't worked because injuries continue to increase since Little League implemented the rule.

 

Until there is some national database that requires every pitching performance to be logged in, there’s no way to do much other than throw opinions out there. Heck, as far as I know, there isn’t a requirement for anyone treating a pitching injury to record that injury and treatment in any kind of national database either. So even if there was a national database containing pitching performances so we could find out who was throwing how many pitches, there wouldn’t be any way to tie injuries to them.

 

So until this country gets national health care where injuries and how they were treated are accessible whether it was administered by the school nurse, the family Dr., the high priced Ortho, the local sports medicine clinic, the pitching coach, mom or even grandma, getting any kind of real answer will be pretty much impossible.

Oh boy, that oughta get the thread kicking again.

So until this country gets national health care ...

 

Here we go again. Let's put everyone in a national database until the police are walking arond saying, "Show me your papers. Vere are your papers." Government is the answer.

 

Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem. 

Too bad that there isn't a place for all folks who feel that way to go so they can experience what it's like to live in a country with minimal government.

 

Oh, wait. There is.  Have fun.

 

I'm sorry that I can't add "JCG" to these vests All in jest, friends.

Caption: "After 103 pitches..."

Hilarious, Sultan.  But not quite as funny as your claims about pitch count rules  yesterday.

Do you have a social security number?

 

The guy with Alzheimer's actually said this: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."