Why don't we do more to protect our pitchers?

So, 2 pitchers hit in the head per year, and 700,000 pitches. That works out to a probability of 0.000286% of being hit in the head on any given pitch. Wow, that's way less than the 0.001% chance given in the article.

I happen to think that CaCO3 makes the most sense out of this entire discussion.

 

There are definitely ways to minimize accidents, and she hit on a few very good points.

I think that more accidents occur while not even playing. Remember the young boy who was just killed and he wasn't even in a game?  

 

Just keep in mind that the more time you have your youth player on the field, the more chances that they could get hurt. You move your son UP to play against older stronger players, then the chance of getting hurt increases. You put a fairly inexperienced pitcher on the mound against better players, then he has the chance of getting hurt for sure.  Teach your son to land in a defensive position to minimize injuries, and don't ever say it doesnt work, your son has to be able to keep his eye on that ball at all times, you cant do that when he is falling off to the side and turning his head. And always remember there is a risk in anything that you do.

 

There really are very few accidents that do occur in the game, and when they do occur they can be devastating, but rarely will that stop a dedicated player to stop playing.  I have seen more accidents among position players, proving the point that the more you play the more your chances rise in an injury occurring.

 

There is a parent who posts here regularly, his son had a very bad come backer while pitching on the cape. But he overcame all the odds and now is a ML pitcher.  I never once heard his dad lay blame on anyone, its just one of those freak things and thats how injuries occur.

 

My son has probably pitched more than most of your sons here. The worst injury he sustained was while catching at 14 he got spiked and his leg was a mess for weeks and playing soccer, and he rolled his ankle and ended up on crutches twice on the field, not even in a game.

 

       
       
I think you are missing the point here.  Even the dumbest of us realize the odds stay the same on each individual pitch.  But when y p u throw many pitches for many seasons your OVERALL odds go up.  These are two separate questions.  First is what are the odds of getting hit on this pitch.  Next question is what are the odds of getting hit at some point in your career.

       
       

You're right. So, if there are 360 pitchers and 2 get hit in the head, that's a 0.56% chance you'll get hit during the year on average. Some higher, some lower depending on how many innings you pitch. Over the course of a 15 year career, the chance you will get hit in the head is 8.4%. If you pitch 10 years, it's 5.6%. Sound about right?

Aiv class="quoteHeading">Originally Posted by bballman:
       
       
I really do not know if that is correct or not. I am NOT trying to be facetious. I just don't know enough about probability and statistics. But assuming those facts are true then we're looking at something that is approaching 10% chance. For me that's too high.  As always I respect all opinions.  While this one got a little intense at times I think it was kept civil and I appreciate that.  Hopefully I have been respectful with my arguments as well.  I do agree it is pointless to obsess over it.  Not like I am going stop my son from pitching.  And I know the odds are highly in his favor.  But will still try to go with the better safe than sorry method.

       

You asked what's going on so I will tell you, and everyone else.  I have reached my limit with rules that are issued "for our own good", when there is very little evidence that it IS for our own good.  The use of seat belts saves thousands of lives a year, I wear them and make my passengers wear them.  However, this idea of changing baseball, because that is what we are talking about, on the one in a million chance a child MIGHT get hurt just pushes my buttons. 

There have been so many changes to the sport I love over the last 10 years it would have my father rolling over in his grave and I'm sure he isn't the only one.  We now have instant replay, and clocks and now an automatic strike zone and it all started with some well intentioned person thinking things would be better if only THIS was changed.  Does it make the game longer to allow the batter out of the box, yes, but it's his right to throw off the timing of the pitcher.  Does instant replay help determine the truth, yes, but umpire error is part of the game, just like the chance that a pitcher will get one nailed back to him.

Do I hope it's not my kid or your kid, YES, I don't want any kid or parent to go through that, but when would it stop?  How many new rules have been introduced "for the safety" of the players?  For the benefit of all?  Now how many have changed the game, and how many more will change it further.  Does it suck for a catchers leg to be broken by a runner barreling into them...yeah, but if it's career ending then it just IS!  How many more ways are we going to change the best game on the planet, until it just isn't the same anymore? It's baseball, not chess, there is a chance of injury but it's part of the game.  Why can't people accept that?  It is optional to play, but if you choose to play it, then play it.  Don't try to make it better.

The rules of baseball have never been static, and I suppose people have been complaining about rules changes for as long as there have been rules, too.

 

I'd rather not have replay, or non-human umps, and I used to be vehemently against the DH, though I'm kind of ambivalent these days (maybe being the dad of a PO has made a difference), so I understand a certain level of resistance to change, and even agree with you on a lot of it.

 

But, being against rules changes that are designed to prevent pointless injuries, I don't get.  Trucking catchers is stupid, and given what players are worth these days and that no level of baseball outside of MLB allowed it while MLB still did, I'm amazed it took them as long to fix as it did. After the Utley slide, which I think was within the rules, they're probably going to change that stuff too, and they should because there's no reason to allow tactics with that level of injury risk in a sport where contact isn't an integral part of the game. Sign me up for doing away with beanball wars and the stupidity that goes with them as well.

       

Sorry for replying on the wrong comments, the mobile version isn't so friendly. Anyway, as unpopular as it may be, yes I think the "safety rules" have changed the game too and I object.  Would I be ticked if my kid made it to MLB and got taken out in his first game, YES, but it's part of the game.  I don't know much about the history of players but who can name a baseball great who got their shot at the big leagues due to player injury? 

Are ball players worth a lot of money, yes, should we change the entire game to "Protect the investments", NO!  Next you will say the World Series will be stopped just because the TV station airing it had technical difficulties...oh wait that did happen. When did baseball stop being about baseball? How many more ways will this game change in the next 10 years, and how many of us will "help" it along?

"I really do not know if that is correct or not. I am NOT trying to be facetious. I just don't know enough about probability and statistics. But assuming those facts are true then we're looking at something that is approaching 10% chance. For me that's too high.  As always I respect all opinions.  While this one got a little intense at times I think it was kept civil and I appreciate that.  Hopefully I have been respectful with my arguments as well.  I do agree it is pointless to obsess over it.  Not like I am going stop my son from pitching.  And I know the odds are highly in his favor.  But will still try to go with the better safe than sorry method."
       


Keep in mind, that is approaching 10% (8.4%) over a 15 year MLB career. That's a LONG time, which VERY few pitchers achieve.  And remember, only some percentage of those pitchers hit in the head require medical attention. The numbers would be MUCH lower if you only counted a significant injury as a result of being hit.

If you play thru college, say starting at 8 years old, that's in the neighborhood of 15 years, but MANY, MANY fewer games played than MLB pitchers play.

A few years ago my sons former Clemson team mate, first round pick in 2006, at third running home to score, was pierced in the chest by a shattered bat. Just missed his heart. Took a long time to recover but he is still playing, name is Tyler Colvin.

Using wood bats isnt as safe as you may think. 

I always say be careful what you wish for.

 

This isn't the first time this discussion has come up.  What always got to me was that the same people who wanted change also admitted they spent lots of money on those metal bats.

 

I understand your concern. If your son continues to move forward in this game, maybe face the best hitters in the game, your concerns will move forward as well.

 

We unfortunetly can't wrap our kids up with bubble wrap to protect them.

I understand the fear and your struggle with why things won't change, but they have. Your son now has available to him equipment that has improved safety for players , that I wish mine had access to, but still it doesn't seem to be enough for you.

 

My only suggestion would be that if you never want anything to happen to him, don't play baseball, don't let him drive a car, or drive with someone else driving, go skiing (I think more people die from ski accidents), ride a bike, or cross a street, just as examples.

 

It's less than MLB, certainly. Average MLB pitcher throws 120 innings per year (averaging total number of innings in 162 games divided by a 12-man pitching staff). That's, what, maybe twice what kids in high school and college are throwing, and three times what junior high and younger throw? Which would put the risk at 2% or 3% for someone pitching from 8 through college. That's actually a lot higher than I would have thought.

 

2019Son had been hit by line drives a couple of times, but thankfully never in the head. I have a daughter who suffered a traumatic brain injury in another sport, and it's not a trivial thing (though she is fully recovered now).

Well the chances of getting shot in the USA are 0.016% and there is a lot made about that... (52,000 incidents for 322,000,000 population). That's all incidents, not just deaths. The chance of getting killed by a gun is 0.0037%. (12,000 deaths for 322,000,000) Maybe 2%-3% is something to be worried about. Still a pretty low chance over a 15 year period.

Assuming that incidence rate is true for everyone (which is obviously a poor assumption, but a decent starting point) your chance of getting shot in an 80 year lifetime is around 1.3%.

 

At a 2% per annum incidence rate, it's 80%.  At 3%, it's 91%.

Also, at  1/300,000 incidence rate, there's a 5% chance of head shot over a 15000 pitch career. It drops to around 2% at about 5000 pitches.

 

At about 1/21500 incidence rate you're break-even to take a shot to the head in a 15000 pitch career.

 

I actually think that the BBCOR/Wood Thing is overrated. I prefer Wood too but no way the Exit Velo difference is 20 mph. it is probably more like 3-4 mph. well 3-4 mph can make a difference but in many cases a liner with a non BBCOR bat would also have hit the pitcher with Wood.

 

BBCOR/Wood can add SOME ADDITIONAL safety but even in MLB plenty of pitchers have been hit and it is only a matter of time before a pitcher is killed or badly injured.

 

As I said I'm pro Wood but I'm surprised that many guys are pro Wood religiously for "safety reasons" but against pitchers head gear (which is a MUCH greater contribution to pitchers safety than Wood bats). I feel that many of those People are traditionalists who only cite the safety concern as a pretext.

 

I would like youth Baseball to be played with Wood but pitchers head gear is at least as important if not more. an 85 mph liner with a Wood bat can still kill you.

 

I know traditionalists are against head gear but they also were against batting helmets. 10 years ago pitching head gear was too heavy and bulky but now there are many light weight and tight Fitting Options.

 

of course a head gear also can't prevent every injury but especially the vulnerable temple area can be protected well.

I still don't understand all the probability and statistics.  From what is discussed here and just observation over the years getting hit over many years of pitching is almost a certainty.  Getting hit in the head - what we are discussing here - is much more rare.  But after many people breaking down numbers not as rare as we may have thought.  As for bats I will now do some research so I am better informed but my early money says there is definitely more than a 3 or 4 mph difference in exit velo between bbcor/wood and whatever we call the 'hot' bats.  But agreed the head gear is much more important than the bat.

I agree with your 1st statement.  Over 80 years, your chances of getting shot are around 1.3%.  I don't understand your 2nd statement.  Where do you come up with a 2% or 3% per annum incidence rate?  That is WAY off the actual numbers.

 

Once again, I understand your 1st statement.  What do you mean by a break-even to take a shot to the head?  Are you saying at 21,500 pitches your chances are 50-50?  I can't believe that's true.  

 

Also, keep in mind, these percentages are of pitchers that get hit in the head.  The incidents of those who get hit in the head and need medical care are even lower than this.  Many people walk away with little more than a bump on their head or a headache.  When we talk about hat inserts to protect against this, it will also help only a portion of those hit in the head because many of the guys hit are hit below the level of the hat.  ie, in the face or jaw.  

 

I also agree with Dominik85, going to a wood or BBCOR bat will not solve all the problems.  Bottom line is, pitching is a risky proposition.  All risks will never be eliminated.

Wanted to jump back in and say my concern is for the kid whose skull is still a bit mushy to begin with.  The discussion of whether MLB/MiLB players should have head protection is something they can work on (they generally have big dollars and can afford big ticket solutions).  I worry about the 12 yo who, when he takes a shot, his skull doesn't crack so much as gets a depression.  An analogy might be that younger kids are required to wear to face guard which is done away with at higher ages.  Also, attributing MLB stats to a 12 yo LL pitcher may be a little misleading.  Not trying to change the game, just hoping there is a $10 solution one day that might keep a couple of kids out of the hospital.

Valid points.  The only reason I started using MLB numbers is because they are more readily available.  I'm not aware of any data base to gather any of this information for youth baseball.  

2020dad, there is a ~15% difference between BBCOR and the 1.15 youth bats in terms of how far (i.e., how hard) they can hit the ball. My understanding is that wood is actually a tick below BBCOR -- even though the BBCOR standard was designed to mimic wood. So if you were using the BBCOR test, it would look something like this:

 

Wood:  .48 or .49 COR (coefficient of restitution)

BBCOR: .50 COR

Youth bats: .575 COR

 

If you think about it in terms of exit velocities (assuming same pitch, same swing, same hit), it would look something like this, assuming the BBCOR exit velocity is 100 mph:

 

Wood:  96-98 mph

BBCOR: 100 mph

Youth bats: 115 mph

 

Of course, the youth bats are also lighter, so the swing speed could be much higher, further accentuating the difference in exit velocities.

 

There is a nonzero chance that my numbers are off a bit, but I think they are directionally correct.

 

I do not under any circumstances think 13 and 14 year olds should be swinging 1.15 bats. 13U -- with some man-child swinging a 1.15 bat from 54 feet away -- was the scariest for the parent of a pitcher. At 14U the teams around here were swinging BBCOR, plus the distance goes to 60'6", and it seemed like the risk went down. I'm sure it goes up from here, though, as the hitters continue to get bigger and stronger.

Originally Posted by jacjacatk:

…I'm not sure there's an easy comparison to be had to the risks at other levels, and I really don't want to spend the time trolling the web for injuries to youth players over time to find a more useful basis from which to draw a conclusion. …

 

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a central location where the injuries for all levels were reported so researchers and others who were just looking for real answers could go to get them?

 

 

 

HIPPA

I'm confused why you say 12y.o skulls don't crack....says the mother of a 6 year old with a cracked skull and Aunt to a 6 month old with a depressed skull from laying flat on her back too often.

 

By the way, after verifying the THREE INCH skull fracture and making certain there was no brain bleed the medical advice from a world renowned children's hospital was "If she throws up again give her this anti nausea medicine, it should pass within 12 hours.  As for her activities, no Gym or recess activities for two weeks".....YUP, TWO WEEKS, I was shocked and thrilled all at the same time.

I would asume that if a 6 yo had a cracked skull, that must have been a huge impact - amazed something like that could happen and not result if a hospital stay - and maybe having to wear a helmet for several weeks.  We had a teammate at 15/16 that got his (foul tip into dugout while he was looking down) - didn't crack his skull but made a nasty depression that apparently rebounded in 24 hours - I think he had a short stay in hospital for observation.  Was really just point out that the discussion about protecting pitchers is quite different between LL and MLB.  I really have no idea what to do in MLB, if anything, but would like to think something reasonably effective and cheap could be developed.  If you look at soccer these days - when I play 30+ years ago, you got made fun of for wearing shin guards - now they are standard issue.

At a rate of 1 ball to the head per 21,500 pitches, you'd be 50-50 over a lifetime to get in the head.  That's not the actual rate, as noted, but it speaks to the fact that you don't have to be especially likely to get cracked in the head on a specific pitch to have a substantial, measurable risk over a lifetime.

 

That's also the reason I included the 2% per 5,000 pitch number, which is based on the MLB incidence of 1/300K.  Anyone who starts pitching in youth ball and keeps it up through HS is probably pitching 6-8 years.  Around here, 600-800 pitches a season is actually pretty low, I'd imagine, so those guys are probably facing something in the neighborhood of 2% chance of taking one off the noggin in a "career"

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some aggregated data somewhere, even if only on a statewide level  California would be where I'd start looking, were I inclined.

Originally Posted by ironhorse:

HIPPA

 

I hear that quite often and I’m certainly not an expert on it by any means, but I haven’t been able to find anything that says having the information is illegal unless it’s associated to someone individually identifiable. IOW, if Johnny Jessup sustained a concussion from being hit with a batted baseball, having the information isn’t against the law unless Johnny Jessup can be tied to it.

 

Here’s what it says on http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ right at the beginning.

 

The Office for Civil Rights enforces the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information…

Originally Posted by jacjacatk:

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some aggregated data somewhere, even if only on a statewide level  California would be where I'd start looking, were I inclined.

 

I have been so inclined and I have looked in Ca.. It’s not that there isn’t data, it’s that that data is so hit and miss, it’s not at all reliable.

She was riding on her dad's shoulders when he hit the lawnmower gas pedal too hard and she flew backwards onto the concrete...I'm guessing between the lawn mower height and the height of his torso about 7 feet straight down.  She was disoriented, made up fake names for her stuffed animals (that did have real names), and kept saying she couldn't see....scariest moment of my life so far, and yes two weeks no PE was the only restrictions, couldn't believe it myself.

OK, but you can't extrapolate 2-3% percent per year into a 91% chance of getting shot when 1.3% is the percentage chance for the lifetime already.  That's a false argument...

 

But, you don't pitch for a lifetime...  A pitching career has a limited life - MUCH shorter than a full lifetime.  Once again a false argument to make the numbers look worse than they are.  You will never pitch for a lifetime and will never reach a 50-50 chance of being hit in the head by a batted ball...

 

You know better than to present these arguments jacjacatk.

Too many physicians are still living in the past. This is why I rarely accept a doctor's note for a concussion from a pediatrician. I want it from a sports medicine physician who is trained in concussion management. Very few of our kids return to sport within two weeks of a concussion. Skull fracture? You're looking at 6-8 weeks MINIMUM! 

In the pitching examples, I was working with 5000 or 15000 pitch "lifetimes" (go back and check, I used both in different examples).  Those almost certainly undersell the "lifetime" of your typical HS pitcher, at least in year-round baseball areas.

 

And I never said you'd reach 50-50 to be hit in a realistic pitching lifetime, just that you would reach 50-50 in a relatively brief "lifetime" of pitches with an incidence rate, 1/21500, that many people would consider small. Tell the average person that 99.995% of all pitches thrown don't result in a line drive to head, and see how worried that would make them as the parent of a pitcher. Then tell them it gives them a break even chance on having their HS pitching son getting hit over his pitching lifetime. Heck, see how they feel about a 2% chance at the actual incidence rate.

I'm the parent of a pitcher and I don't worry about it.  The chances of him, myself or anyone else of dying in a car wreck or getting hit by a car are much higher.  As I stated multiple times, the chances of dying or being seriously injured by getting hit in the head by a batted ball are much lower than these numbers anyway.  

 

I still think you are throwing out numbers that are unrealistic.  I don't think under any circumstances that your chances will ever be 50-50 of getting hit in the head by a batted ball.  On the same note, your chances will never be 91% of getting shot in your lifetime (I'm talking about the average person.  Of course a member of the military is MUCH higher.  And if you are heavily involved in criminal activity or law enforcement, it will be higher, but still not 91% except in VERY limited circumstances).  Just isn't going to happen...

Well, it's good to know that you don't think things will happen that I never said would happen.

 

FWIW, 18yo male drivers die at a rate of about 45/100,000 per year in car crashes. HS age pitchers throw at least 1000 pitches a year around here once travel is accounted for. So, assuming a line drive to the head rate of about 1/300,000 pitches, HS pitchers are at least 135 times more likely to be hit in the head by a line drive than to die in car wreck (as a driver).

I have a son that pitched for a very long time.  I will admit that the line drive up the middle was my biggest fear.  More so than the more common arm injury.

 

However, this wasn't a fear that popped into my mind constantly.  Just at times, it would cross my mind that the danger existed.

 

It's also one of my fears every time I watch any pitcher.  It doesn't happen very often, but when it does it can get real ugly.  I have seen it a few times. Good fielding position helps a pitcher field the ball, that advantage is very slight when you're 54 feet away from a 100+ mph line drive.

 

So even though the percentages are very low, I'd still like to see some safety feature that pitchers were comfortable with.  After all, there was a day when hitters didn't wear helmets.  I think we should always look for more safety that doesn't involve changing the game itself. But that is the hard part, most pitchers would be against any change.

 

BTW, hitters in the old days would turn over in their grave watching today's hitters with their elbow and ankle protection, batting gloves, and modern day helmets.

BTW, hitters in the old days would turn over in their grave watching today's hitters with their elbow and ankle protection, batting gloves, and modern day helmets.

 

Dunno about that.  Is Pete Rose an old timer?  I have no doubt he'd wear an elbow guard and lean over the plate in that crouch if he was playing today.  From what I've read about Cobb he was the same kind of player. Anything to win. Not a second thought about the purity of the game.

 

Speaking of which -- sorry to some folks above, but rules changes are part of the game, just like the amendments are part of the Constitution.  The addition of a rule that penalizes a guy like Rose for trucking over a catcher (like Fosse) at a full run is a feature of this process, not a bug.

I always had a continual, lingering fear for pitchers  (of both teams--ours AND theirs) when I coached BESR baseball.

That lingering fear is almost nonexistent for me with BBCOR and woodbat baseball.

 

It's not because of the rational probabilities.

I think it's because I always felt that we were daring fate by letting HS batters use  juiced-up bats.  It seemed like an "un-natural" risk.

 

Whereas, the risk posed by woodlike (or wood) bats seems natural and acceptable to me.  Like getting hit by lightning.  Basically, an act of God (or Fate), not an act of Man (who is tempting Fate, by allowing/using juiced bats.)

I'm not saying this is rational on my part.

 

If you don't think it's going to happen, why state the stats?

 

And you're numbers or thinking is wrong about getting hit vs. dying in a car wreck.  The chances are 45/100,000 to get killed in a car wreck during a given year.  If the chances are 1/300,000 pitches that a kid would get hit by a pitch in the head, it would take him pitching for 300 years at 1,000 pitches a year for him to even reach the possibility of getting hit 1/300,000 pitches.  That's compared to a 45/100,000 chance of getting killed in a car wreck this year alone.  

 

There is NO WAY a pitcher is 135 times more likely to get hit by a pitch in the head...

If it were true that 1000 pitches a year meant that it would take 300 years for even the possibility of getting hit, then no teen would ever die in a car accident.  Since that's self-evidently untrue....

 

At a rate of 45/100,000 deaths there's .045% chance of dying in a car wreck. At a "hit" rate of 1 per 300,000 pitches there's a .332779% chance of getting hit by at least one line drive if you throw 1000 pitches. Note the "at least" part, because there's some chance of getting hit by more than one line drive in 1000 pitches (or any number of pitches greater than 1), so you can't do a straight 1000/300,000 calculation as you can with the car crash stats.

 

Also, I did do something wrong with my math in my head before, since it turns out .332779/.045 = 7.4 (thanks Excel), so your HS pitcher is only about seven and a half times as likely to get in the head as to die in a car crash. Given the numbers involved, that risk increases more or less linearly with number of pitches, though.

 

Finally, while a .33% chance doesn't sound like much, it's basically equivalent to 1 in 300 pitchers getting hit in the head per year.  I'll leave someone else to figure out how many HS pitchers there are.

FWIW, this is part of the problem with people and risk analysis. The individual risk seems somewhere between negligible and non-existant, but in aggregate there's potentially a real problem.  Obviously, we all let our teens drive, so we're willing to accept some risk, at least implicitly (we could talk about whether that's explicitly a good idea or not). But, we spend, collectively, a lot of money to mitigate the risk of those teens driving, so there's certainly a viable argument to be made that we should spend some amount of resources preventing a subset of them from getting hit in the head by line drives.