baseball nets foul pole to foul pole

[ChicosBailBonds]

They should issue everyone helmets.

Problem solved.

People who are really worried could bring tier own helmet.  Oh, wait, not enough room in the Prius for a helmet.

I laughed!!   

[keefe]

They should issue everyone helmets.

Problem solved.

People who are really worried could bring tier own helmet.  Oh, wait, not enough room in the Prius for a helmet.

Well, I think if you hang a carabiner off your fanny pack you can carry a helmet in your Prius. Of course, if you ride your Vespa to the game, then you already have your in-stadium protective headwear.

[StillAWarrior]

Sorry, it isn't vague.  Reasonable people know what a serious injury is in my opinion.  If your injury requires a bag of ice, it isn't a serious injury most likely.  If you are required to go to the hospital, that is a serious injury.

Thank you for helping teach a lesson, even if you are unable to learn it yourself.  "Serious Injury" = vague; "required to go to the hospital" = not vague.  If you're making the non-vague claim that the odds of being injured to the point that you must go to the hospital is 1 in a million, you might be right.  I don't know.  There might not be any data out there one way or another to support that.

[MU82]

I have read every comment here and have yet to see one to convince me that putting up nets for the entire lower deck is anything but a no-brainer.

One person says he hates nets and could never, ever, ever adjust to them being in place. Another keeps arguing about statistical vagueness because he loves arguing and he's never been wrong about anything in his life.

Some of the same folks who talk about how precious EVERY human life is are against netting that could -- almost surely would -- save lives.

No team will lose more than .001% of fans if this happens. But a life or two might be saved.

Nets. No-brainer.

[copious1218]

I have read every comment here and have yet to see one to convince me that putting up nets for the entire lower deck is anything but a no-brainer.

One person says he hates nets and could never, ever, ever adjust to them being in place. Another keeps arguing about statistical vagueness because he loves arguing and he's never been wrong about anything in his life.

Some of the same folks who talk about how precious EVERY human life is are against netting that could -- almost surely would -- save lives.

No team will lose more than .001% of fans if this happens. But a life or two might be saved.

Nets. No-brainer.

Then why stop at the foul poles?  Why not put nets up across the bleachers too?

[GGGG]

Then why stop at the foul poles?  Why not put nets up across the bleachers too?

Because the risk of injury is substantially less.

[GGGG]

Then they aren't really injured.  Whenever a fan is hit by a ball or "drilled", an usher comes over to check on the fan.  If they are hurt, they will receive follow-up look, perhaps from a staffer or medical person.  If they are hurt seriously, they are taken to the hospital.  if they don't claim an injury, they probably weren't injured.

Sorry, it isn't vague.  Reasonable people know what a serious injury is in my opinion.  If your injury requires a bag of ice, it isn't a serious injury most likely.  If you are required to go to the hospital, that is a serious injury.  Your math, in my opinion isn't working.  Furthermore, I wasn't the one who criticized someone first, I responded to his criticism of me. 

If I attend a baseball game, and am hit by a foul ball, and need a bag of ice as a result, while I'm not sure I would call it serious, I wouldn't be pleased.

Furthermore the distance between a ice bag injury and a serious injury is only a matter of inches.

You aren't making a compelling argument IMO.

[copious1218]

Because the risk of injury is substantially less.

So one seat to the fair side of the foul pole is safe.  One seat to the foul side is dangerous?  Personally, I'm not even arguing statistical probability of injury.  I'm arguing that people should have a choice.  I'm not even against extending the nets to some degree.  Maybe extend them from 1st base to 3rd base - that should eliminate all bat issues and greatly reduce foul balls.  I just want some area of a baseball field that is relatively close to the action (not bleachers) where I can watch the game without a net.  I'm advocating for choice.  A foul pole to foul pole net eliminates that. 

[GGGG]

I don't know the statistical probabilities either.  Perhaps first to third is enough.

[PBRme]

What about college, HS and tball

[Benny B]

I don't know the statistical probabilities either.  Perhaps first to third is enough.

Would anyone here like to bring Scoop up to speed as to what's so special about Section 215 at Miller Park?

[CTWarrior]

If I attend a baseball game, and am hit by a foul ball, and need a bag of ice as a result, while I'm not sure I would call it serious, I wouldn't be pleased.

Furthermore the distance between a ice bag injury and a serious injury is only a matter of inches.

You aren't making a compelling argument IMO.

If I was hit by a foul ball, I'd blame myself for not paying attention.  I certainly wouldn't be angry with the team.

How about you put a net on one side of the field to the foul pole and leave it the way it is on the other and give fans a choice?  And no suing if you pick the side without the net.  I wonder if people would care enough to make a point of picking the net side or the non-net side?

[MU82]

If I was hit by a foul ball, I'd blame myself for not paying attention.  I certainly wouldn't be angry with the team.

How about you put a net on one side of the field to the foul pole and leave it the way it is on the other and give fans a choice?  And no suing if you pick the side without the net.  I wonder if people would care enough to make a point of picking the net side or the non-net side?

OK, but isn't this kind of like having a seat-belt lane and an unbuckled lane?

Look, I know nobody likes Big Brother intruding on anything, but I really think in very short time these nets would be virtually unnoticed and in the long term will have been a good thing.

Hockey, as others have mentioned, is the perfect comparison. Go back and look. There was much whining done when that decision was made. Now, the only time it's mentioned is when a puck hits the net right in front of a fan and he turns to his buddy and says, "You know, 10 years ago, I might have been killed by that effen thing."

I'd love to hear evidence that the NHL has lost even one fan because of the netting. For that matter, I'd love to hear evidence that any MLB fan stopped buying tickets because of the home-plate-area netting.

I'm still convinced it's a no-brainer -- and for those who have read my drivel for a long time on this board, that is not a term I throw around lightly.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

OK, but isn't this kind of like having a seat-belt lane and an unbuckled lane?

Look, I know nobody likes Big Brother intruding on anything, but I really think in very short time these nets would be virtually unnoticed and in the long term will have been a good thing.

Hockey, as others have mentioned, is the perfect comparison. Go back and look. There was much whining done when that decision was made. Now, the only time it's mentioned is when a puck hits the net right in front of a fan and he turns to his buddy and says, "You know, 10 years ago, I might have been killed by that effen thing."

I'd love to hear evidence that the NHL has lost even one fan because of the netting. For that matter, I'd love to hear evidence that any MLB fan stopped buying tickets because of the home-plate-area netting.

I'm still convinced it's a no-brainer -- and for those who have read my drivel for a long time on this board, that is not a term I throw around lightly.

Home plate makes sense though. A foul tip off the bat straight back is scary as hell. How about a compromise bu extending the netting to the dugout. Once it gets past there the ball slows way down.

[GGGG]

If I was hit by a foul ball, I'd blame myself for not paying attention.  I certainly wouldn't be angry with the team.

There are like 300 pitches in a game.  What if I am ordering a beer from the team's vendor?  Or looking at the player's stats on the team's scoreboard?  When you go to a game, can you legitimately say you watch every pitch?

I'm with MU82.  I think once people get used to it everyone will be fine.  That being said, I am not sure how necessary it is to go all the way to the foul pole.  Need to see more data.

[Benny B]

There are like 300 pitches in a game.  What if I am ordering a beer from the team's vendor?  Or looking at the player's stats on the team's scoreboard?  When you go to a game, can you legitimately say you watch every pitch?

I'm with MU82.  I think once people get used to it everyone will be fine.  That being said, I am not sure how necessary it is to go all the way to the foul pole.  Need to see more data.

Stats Inc., or whatever the company is, has all of this data.  There are certain sections in every ballpark that are virtually guaranteed to see a half-dozen foul balls during the game (e.g. the aforementioned Section 215).  There are sections that will see one per game.  There are sections that will see one every six games.  There are sections that will see less than one all season.  And within each of these sections, the balls travel within a particular range of speeds & trajectories, which is simple physics, e.g. a left handed batter isn't going to scream a liner (dangerous) into Section 115 - which is directly behind him - but could send a pop foul into the section (not as dangerous).

Sultan is right on track... you can look at the stats and the physics to determine which sections make sense to net and which ones don't.  You could even set some criteria - e.g. net any section where probability indicates >X foul balls will enter the section <Y seconds after the pitch - and make an objective determination based upon the same.

[tower912]

To the far end of each dugout may be enough.   Maybe dugout +50 ft.   Most little league through high school fields have an 6-8 ft high fence to the dugout, at least around here.    There are still incidents, but the difference between a 12 year old fouling a ball toward the stands and a major leaguer fouling a 95 mph fastball on a line into the first row behind the dugout is immense.    The reaction times are quantums apart. 

[copious1218]

OK, but isn't this kind of like having a seat-belt lane and an unbuckled lane?

Look, I know nobody likes Big Brother intruding on anything, but I really think in very short time these nets would be virtually unnoticed and in the long term will have been a good thing.

Hockey, as others have mentioned, is the perfect comparison. Go back and look. There was much whining done when that decision was made. Now, the only time it's mentioned is when a puck hits the net right in front of a fan and he turns to his buddy and says, "You know, 10 years ago, I might have been killed by that effen thing."

I'd love to hear evidence that the NHL has lost even one fan because of the netting. For that matter, I'd love to hear evidence that any MLB fan stopped buying tickets because of the home-plate-area netting.

I'm still convinced it's a no-brainer -- and for those who have read my drivel for a long time on this board, that is not a term I throw around lightly.

In your opinion, is it a "no-brainer" all the way to the foul pole?  Why?  Why exclude the bleachers if it is such a no-brainer?

[swoopem]

OK, but isn't this kind of like having a seat-belt lane and an unbuckled lane?

Look, I know nobody likes Big Brother intruding on anything, but I really think in very short time these nets would be virtually unnoticed and in the long term will have been a good thing.

Hockey, as others have mentioned, is the perfect comparison. Go back and look. There was much whining done when that decision was made. Now, the only time it's mentioned is when a puck hits the net right in front of a fan and he turns to his buddy and says, "You know, 10 years ago, I might have been killed by that effen thing."

I'd love to hear evidence that the NHL has lost even one fan because of the netting. For that matter, I'd love to hear evidence that any MLB fan stopped buying tickets because of the home-plate-area netting.

I'm still convinced it's a no-brainer -- and for those who have read my drivel for a long time on this board, that is not a term I throw around lightly.

People didn't go to a hockey game hoping to catch a puck that went into the stands. Some people go to baseball games with the hope of catching a foul ball. Grown men still bring their glove to the game.

This is comparable to people who want to put boards in between the basketball court and the first row of seats. In my option the idea of nets is incredibly stupid and I hope it doesn't happen.

Also, how many times do you see players interacting with the fans, giving them high fives, signing autographs for kids, tossing them some sunflower seeds, etc. With the nets it wouldn't be nearly as intimate. It would be like showing your buddy in jail some window love by putting your hands against the glass. 

Edit: I guess the one good thing that can come out of this would be less fan interference. As a Cubs fan I think maybe if there was a net Bartman wouldn't have happened

[brandx]

In your opinion, is it a "no-brainer" all the way to the foul pole?  Why?  Why exclude the bleachers if it is such a no-brainer?

Because there is a common sense way to do it rather than just trying to argue.

As Tower said, there is no reaction time on a line shot behind the dugout. At the foul pole there is plenty of reaction time.

[keefe]

Because the risk of injury is substantially less.

Well, certainly when the Mariner's are up to bat...

[copious1218]

Because there is a common sense way to do it rather than just trying to argue.

As Tower said, there is no reaction time on a line shot behind the dugout. At the foul pole there is plenty of reaction time.

I'm not trying to argue.  The phrase "no-brainer" to me means there are no better options.  Why is foul pole to foul pole the "no-brainer" choice or the "common sense" choice?  Why not 1st to 3rd like I proposed previously.  Why not the whole stadium?  Are there no other options worthy of discussion?

[BrewCity83]

I concede that adding netting somewhere like to the end of the dugouts makes sense (even though I'm even against that).  But foul pole to foul pole is a knee-jerk overreaction.

[brandx]

I'm not trying to argue.  The phrase "no-brainer" to me means there are no better options.  Why is foul pole to foul pole the "no-brainer" choice or the "common sense" choice?  Why not 1st to 3rd like I proposed previously.  Why not the whole stadium?  Are there no other options worthy of discussion?

Sorry for the wording - I was kinda referring to the whole thread rather than you specifically. While my 1st choice would be foul pole to foul pole, I don't have a problem with your suggestion either.

I used to sit in the 1st couple rows behind the plate quite a bit and the net never bothered me at all. After the 1st couple minutes, I wasn't even aware of it any more.

[MU82]

I'm not trying to argue.  The phrase "no-brainer" to me means there are no better options.  Why is foul pole to foul pole the "no-brainer" choice or the "common sense" choice?  Why not 1st to 3rd like I proposed previously.  Why not the whole stadium?  Are there no other options worthy of discussion?

Fair enough. I'm not exactly sure where it should end. I do think it is a no-brainer that it should go at least to the "danger zones." Then maybe statistics would support if it goes just to the end of the dugout, X feet past the dugout, to the foul pole, etc.