Lawsuit asking for this to be put into place.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13250418/lawsuit-seeks-safety-netting-mlb-ballparks
No news if they will require all fans to wear helmets and be covered in bubble wrap as they drive to the field in their cars
Already done in Japan. Somehow, the game has managed to survive there.
Quote from: tower912 on July 14, 2015, 06:15:12 AM
Already done in Japan. Somehow, the game has managed to survive there.
And I remember when some people thought it would ruin the hockey experience when implemented after a girl was killed at a game in Columbus. Somehow, hockey has survived.
I really do think it is kind of crazy to have a game where projectiles are coming into the crowd at such a high rate of speed. You've got to be paying pretty close attention to protect yourself from some of those screaming line drives that come into the stands. I think that extending the netting is a good and reasonable idea.
I purposely never get tickets behind home plate because I hate watching a game through the net. I would hate for this idea to be implemented, but of course, given the litigious nature of society, it will be sooner or later.
Here's an idea. How about people pay attention to the damn game instead of mess around on their cell phones the entire time.
Quote from: ChitownNichols on July 14, 2015, 07:41:34 AM
Here's an idea. How about people pay attention to the damn game instead of mess around on their cell phones the entire time.
Not a Cubs fan, ai na?
Quote from: ChitownNichols on July 14, 2015, 07:41:34 AM
Here's an idea. How about people pay attention to the damn game instead of mess around on their cell phones the entire time.
+1
Quote from: ChitownNichols on July 14, 2015, 07:41:34 AM
Here's an idea. How about people pay attention to the damn game instead of mess around on their cell phones the entire time.
I don't disagree with you...but I'm sure the teams will hate sacrificing sales from all those vendors that are a built in distraction. I've never been hit by a ball, and I pay close attention. But teams know that a lot of their paying customers don't, and some of the more significant distractions (aside from phones which are the worst) are actually placed there by the teams. I know we're all better than those inattentive idiots who get hurt at games, but it really does seem like a pretty reasonable measure to protect people from baseballs that are entering the stands at 100+ mph.
Quote from: CTWarrior on July 14, 2015, 07:40:21 AM
I purposely never get tickets behind home plate because I hate watching a game through the net. I would hate for this idea to be implemented, but of course, given the litigious nature of society, it will be sooner or later.
I have watched numerous games behind home plate, and never once has the net bothered me. Don't really even notice it after awhile. My guess is that this would seem very strange at first, but people would get used to it rather quickly.
Quote from: tower912 on July 14, 2015, 06:15:12 AM
Already done in Japan. Somehow, the game has managed to survive there.
Not claiming it won't survive. Part of the experience of going to a baseball game is trying to get a foul ball, being part of the action.
I'm attending with family this Saturday Halos - Red Sox. We are in major screaming ball territory. It's a risk. One that if you were to look at the foul balls hit in each game over the years make the likelihood of a serious injury 1 in a million.
There are reasonable measures that should be taken at any sporting event. Then there is overreach and reactionary nonsense.
Last year, 73,739,622 fans went to MLB games. A Bloomberg report indicated that 1,750 on average are hurt by foul balls each year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-09/baseball-caught-looking-as-fouls-injure-1750-fans-a-year
So it isn't "1 in a million." It is one in about 42,000. Which is about two in every three games.
Is this "overreach and reactionary nonsense." Eh...I don't know. I tend to think keeping fans safe is a good idea and I don't think the in-game experience would be that harmed.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 14, 2015, 09:55:35 AM
Last year, 73,739,622 fans went to MLB games. A Bloomberg report indicated that 1,750 on average are hurt by foul balls each year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-09/baseball-caught-looking-as-fouls-injure-1750-fans-a-year
So it isn't "1 in a million." It is one in about 42,000. Which is about two in every three games.
Is this "overreach and reactionary nonsense." Eh...I don't know. I tend to think keeping fans safe is a good idea and I don't think the in-game experience would be that harmed.
Try again, I said
SERIOUS injury.
Some people break a nail and claim an injury.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 14, 2015, 08:51:38 AM
I have watched numerous games behind home plate, and never once has the net bothered me. Don't really even notice it after awhile. My guess is that this would seem very strange at first, but people would get used to it rather quickly.
I've done it several times and don't like it and find it distracting. I go to 3-5 games a year or so (in multiple parks - my hope is to see all the MLB teams play at home before my demise) and always try to sit field level behind the dugouts. A net won't stop me from going to games, just like lengthening the commercial breaks between innings hasn't stopped me. But each time something like this is done it makes the experience less enjoyable.
I understand its good business but I don't have to like it.
How about everyone has to check their cell phones in before entering the game so they pay attention.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 14, 2015, 08:51:38 AM
I have watched numerous games behind home plate, and never once has the net bothered me. Don't really even notice it after awhile. My guess is that this would seem very strange at first, but people would get used to it rather quickly.
I've watched dozens of games at Miller Park from 20-30 feet behind the net. The only time it ever became a bother was when trying to take a picture (damn auto-focus).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 14, 2015, 09:48:32 AM
One that if you were to look at the foul balls hit in each game over the years make the likelihood of a serious injury 1 in a million.
There are reasonable measures that should be taken at any sporting event. Then there is overreach and reactionary nonsense.
Well... the Brewers alone draw over 2M fans per season. That's two serious injuries per year in Milwaukee alone. Now I know why David Gruber has a suite at the stadium... it pays for itself!
If you want to avoid getting hit by a bat or ball you can sit behind the net, sit in the upper deck, or sit in the bleachers. If you want to sit close to the action without a net interfering with your view, you should be able to. Perhaps they could just do a better of informing patrons where the nets are located at the point of sale so those that would prefer to be safe can choose seats accordingly.
Quote from: copious1218 on July 14, 2015, 12:26:59 PM
If you want to avoid getting hit by a bat or ball you can sit behind the net, sit in the upper deck, or sit in the bleachers. If you want to sit close to the action without a net interfering with your view, you should be able to. Perhaps they could just do a better of informing patrons where the nets are located at the point of sale so those that would prefer to be safe can choose seats accordingly.
This is exactly what they should do. Let those of us who want to sit in the "dangerous areas" do so.
Quote from: ChitownNichols on July 14, 2015, 07:41:34 AM
Here's an idea. How about people pay attention to the damn game instead of mess around on their cell phones the entire time.
The teams now market to the cellphones. They tell the fans to multi-task and follow along with the team site, the chat room, the Twitter feed, etc.
As another commenter said, I remember incredible wailing about how the nets would ruin hockey. Please.
One commenter said, "If you want to avoid getting hit by a bat or ball you can sit behind the net, sit in the upper deck, or sit in the bleachers." Oh, so those who value their health have to sit in worse seats? How 'bout turning it around and saying, "If you don't want to worry about looking through a net, you can sit in the upper deck or in the bleachers."
Come on. Putting up the nets is so common sense it's a borderline no-brainer. Most fans will get used to them in two weeks.
Quote from: MU82 on July 14, 2015, 04:23:41 PM
The teams now market to the cellphones. They tell the fans to multi-task and follow along with the team site, the chat room, the Twitter feed, etc.
As another commenter said, I remember incredible wailing about how the nets would ruin hockey. Please.
One commenter said, "If you want to avoid getting hit by a bat or ball you can sit behind the net, sit in the upper deck, or sit in the bleachers." Oh, so those who value their health have to sit in worse seats? How 'bout turning it around and saying, "If you don't want to worry about looking through a net, you can sit in the upper deck or in the bleachers."
Come on. Putting up the nets is so common sense it's a borderline no-brainer. Most fans will get used to them in two weeks.
I'm sure people whined when nets were put behind home plate as well.
But common sense ideas aren't always seen as common sense.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 14, 2015, 10:13:09 AM
Try again, I said SERIOUS injury.
Some people break a nail and claim an injury.
And a lot of people get drilled and don't claim an injury at all.
Putting aside that the term "serious injury" is so vague as to be pretty much meaningless, if even 10% of those injuries are "serious injuries" you were
way off on your estimate. At least Sultan provided a stat. You pulled a number out of your ass and then turned around and criticized someone who actually brought some actual info to the discussion. It's OK to admit that your ridiculous made up number with an undefined qualifier was wrong.
Edited to add: Sultan's statistics were for total MLB attendance, which of course includes those sitting behind the net, in the upper decks and in the bleachers. The number sitting in the "screaming ball territory" is much lower than the total attendance. I'd say that brings the odds of "injury" for those people somewhere down in the 1 in 15,000 range (assuming about 1/3 of fans sit in those areas). I know you'll never admit it...but your "1 in a million" guess was way off.
Quote from: MU82 on July 14, 2015, 04:23:41 PM
The teams now market to the cellphones. They tell the fans to multi-task and follow along with the team site, the chat room, the Twitter feed, etc.
As another commenter said, I remember incredible wailing about how the nets would ruin hockey. Please.
One commenter said, "If you want to avoid getting hit by a bat or ball you can sit behind the net, sit in the upper deck, or sit in the bleachers." Oh, so those who value their health have to sit in worse seats? How 'bout turning it around and saying, "If you don't want to worry about looking through a net, you can sit in the upper deck or in the bleachers."
Come on. Putting up the nets is so common sense it's a borderline no-brainer. Most fans will get used to them in two weeks.
1) I'm not sure how you can possibly argue the seats behind the net are "worse seats" if you're not bothered by the net. Proximity wise they are directly behind home plate and as close to the action as you can get.
2) Depending on the height of the net you're advocating for, the upper deck may not be an option for someone who doesn't want to look through it. It is an option for someone who has safety concerns.
Look, I get it. Fan safety is important, but I personally hate watching through the net. My eyes never adjust to it being there and I always notice it. If they add them from foul pole to foul pole I would try to get front row bleacher seats to be as close as possible without the distraction, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 14, 2015, 05:59:51 PM
And a lot of people get drilled and don't claim an injury at all.
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.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 14, 2015, 05:59:51 PM
Putting aside that the term "serious injury" is so vague as to be pretty much meaningless, if even 10% of those injuries are "serious injuries" you were way off on your estimate. At least Sultan provided a stat. You pulled a number out of your ass and then turned around and criticized someone who actually brought some actual info to the discussion. It's OK to admit that your ridiculous made up number with an undefined qualifier was wrong.
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.
I specifically said serious injury for a reason, because run of the mill injuries are just that, run of the mill. Note the article didn't describe the injuries.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 14, 2015, 05:59:51 PM
Edited to add: Sultan's statistics were for total MLB attendance, which of course includes those sitting behind the net, in the upper decks and in the bleachers. The number sitting in the "screaming ball territory" is much lower than the total attendance. I'd say that brings the odds of "injury" for those people somewhere down in the 1 in 15,000 range (assuming about 1/3 of fans sit in those areas). I know you'll never admit it...but your "1 in a million" guess was way off.
But the odds for injury that I described were attending a game. I said there was risk, in fact we are sitting in screaming ball territory so taking on even more risk. Of course the odds are going to be higher behind 1st base or 3rd base then they are sitting in the bleachers in the outfield, but the overall risk is still incredibly low attending a game. So stipulated. Also, you can get hurt behind home plate as well. It happened this year. Happened two years ago. Random acts of injury can happen at a baseball game. I read it on the back of the ticket. They tell me on the scoreboard and announcements before every game. No one is denying this.
I said one in a million for serious injuries. I don't see where I'm wrong. What do you want me to admit...I'm wrong for something I haven't been proven wrong on? How many serious injuries happen each year in baseball? Serious injuries...taking someone to the hospital, because..you know...it's serious. Doctor required, not some staffer at the park? That's the key, that's why I said SERIOUS INJURIES. What is it, 20 per year? 2 per ball club per year? In the two seasons I worked for the Angels I cannot remember it happening one time in those two seasons. Maybe it did. Some clubs will have more than 2, some will have zero. It would have to be north of 73 per year to take out the 1 in a million comment. Maybe it is more than 73 per year, but I'd like to see the evidence of that where a serious injury is involved.
Factoid:
Nets were first put up at baseball games behind home plate in 1879. They become common place prior to 1900. I doubt people were complaining about them behind home plate as implied here.
In addition, may I offer this rebuttal as to the context of the 1,750 "injuries" that happen each year. His opinion obviously, but he also points out that sometimes it's a ball hit to an empty area and fans hurt themselves scrambling for it. He estimates 1 serious injury every 500 games from a ball hitting someone, but there isn't enough data to know for sure. http://foulballz.com/foul/foul-ball-injuries-contextualized-1750-isnt-all-that-serious/
So again, my 1 in a million is every bit as valid as someone else's because the data just isn't there. He estimates 4 to 5 hospitalizations each year. That would make the odds of a serious injury in how I defined it, at 1 in 15 million. Chip away.
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.
Quote from: real chili 83 on July 14, 2015, 11:24:07 PM
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!! :)
Quote from: real chili 83 on July 14, 2015, 11:24:07 PM
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.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 14, 2015, 11:07:34 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: MU82 on July 15, 2015, 09:41:59 AM
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?
Quote from: copious1218 on July 15, 2015, 09:43:17 AM
Then why stop at the foul poles? Why not put nets up across the bleachers too?
Because the risk of injury is substantially less.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 14, 2015, 11:07:34 PM
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.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 15, 2015, 09:55:12 AM
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.
I don't know the statistical probabilities either. Perhaps first to third is enough.
What about college, HS and tball
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 15, 2015, 10:16:03 AM
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?
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 15, 2015, 09:58:50 AM
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?
Quote from: CTWarrior on July 15, 2015, 02:28:11 PM
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.
Quote from: MU82 on July 15, 2015, 03:20:25 PM
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.
Quote from: CTWarrior on July 15, 2015, 02:28:11 PM
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.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 15, 2015, 03:26:19 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: MU82 on July 15, 2015, 03:20:25 PM
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?
Quote from: MU82 on July 15, 2015, 03:20:25 PM
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
Quote from: copious1218 on July 15, 2015, 04:00:57 PM
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.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 15, 2015, 09:55:12 AM
Because the risk of injury is substantially less.
Well, certainly when the Mariner's are up to bat...
Quote from: brandx on July 15, 2015, 04:23:05 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: copious1218 on July 15, 2015, 04:31:19 PM
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.
Quote from: copious1218 on July 15, 2015, 04:31:19 PM
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.
Quote from: real chili 83 on July 14, 2015, 11:24:07 PM
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.
Brilliant.
How about plexiglass around the dugouts, and making the players walk from the far end to get to the plate? They must be protected too; can't ask them to pay attention when they're busy with dip and sunflower seeds.
An eagle-eyed viewer might be able to see the wires. A pedant might be able to see the wires. But I think if you're looking at the wires you're ignoring the story. If you go to a puppet show, you can see the wires. But it's about the puppets, it's not about the string. If you go to a Punch and Judy show and you're only watching the wires, you're a freak.
Quote from: MU82 on July 15, 2015, 09:41:59 AM
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.
HONESTLY MU82, IT'S HARD TO KEEP UP WITH YOU WHEN CONSTANTLY LIE. IT REALLY IS...OR IS LYING JUST EXAGGERATION.
I'VE ADMITTED TO BEING WRONG MANY TIMES. HERE'S A SUGGESTION FOR YOU, GO TO THE GAMES YOURSELF WITH A BEEKEEPER SUIT, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A NET. YOU CAN SHOW HOW MUCH SMARTER YOU ARE THAN EVERYONE ELSE.
Quote from: swoopem on July 15, 2015, 04:22:08 PM
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
Except that ball would have hit the net. Net result would have been the same, but Bartman would not be a goat.
You also lose all those plays where players reach or dive into the stands to catch a ball. Another small thing, but those are often great, exciting plays.
Quote from: CTWarrior on July 16, 2015, 07:32:33 AM
You also lose all those plays where players reach or dive into the stands to catch a ball. Another small thing, but those are often great, exciting plays.
That is the most compelling argument I've seen in this thread to not extend the net. Although I think extending the net to the end of the dugout would substantially reduce the risk but preserve that part of the the game. But it would leave the risk of the screaming line drive foul ball.
The reasons not to put them up
Tradition
Chance to get a ball as a souvenir which has been part of the fabric of baseball since the game began
Serious injuries are almost non-existent....extremely rare
Could impact the game itself (outs that happen now by players reaching into the stands)
Continued softening of America
The hockey comparison is poor. I go to many hockey games every year. Following the puck is difficult because of its color and the background of the crowd, the variability of where the puck is in a fluid game. The puck can come into the stands from anywhere on the ice at high speed.
In baseball this is completely different. The baseball ALWAYS comes from one location, the batter's box. If you pay attention to that small 5 foot area, you see the source of the ball every time. It is also white, not black. It is also round, not with edges like a puck.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 16, 2015, 09:18:26 AM
In baseball this is completely different. The baseball ALWAYS comes from one location, the batter's box. If you pay attention to that small 5 foot area, you see the source of the ball every time. It is also white, not black. It is also round, not with edges like a puck.
Even if you see the the source, the ball is flying 100mph into the stands. It's going to hit someone even if 100% of the fans are paying attention. The safety of fans shouldn't be dependent on how quick of hands they have.
And please stop it with the "softening of America" BS. It's ridiculous.
Mods,
I request that you issue me a Scoop helmet. I find myself banging my head against the desk when I read some of these threads. You have a responsibility to protect me from myself when logged in to Scoop.
Quote from: real chili 83 on July 16, 2015, 11:48:28 AM
Mods,
I request that you issue me a Scoop helmet. I find myself banging my head against the desk when I read some of these threads. You have a responsibility to protect me from myself when logged in to Scoop.
+1
I'd also add that a Scoop bubble-wrap suit would be helpful, as I often resort to various forms of self-mutilation.
STOP THE CARNAGE!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 16, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
HONESTLY MU82, IT'S HARD TO KEEP UP WITH YOU WHEN CONSTANTLY LIE. IT REALLY IS...OR IS LYING JUST EXAGGERATION.
I'VE ADMITTED TO BEING WRONG MANY TIMES. HERE'S A SUGGESTION FOR YOU, GO TO THE GAMES YOURSELF WITH A BEEKEEPER SUIT, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A NET. YOU CAN SHOW HOW MUCH SMARTER YOU ARE THAN EVERYONE ELSE.
Watch it, Chicos. They'll have to issue a beekeeper suits to every fan that enters the ball park plus have a net from foul pole to foul pole. Can't ever be too safe.
Isn't there an executive order implementing this as part of Obamacare?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 16, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
HONESTLY MU82, IT'S HARD TO KEEP UP WITH YOU WHEN CONSTANTLY LIE. IT REALLY IS...OR IS LYING JUST EXAGGERATION.
Candidate for ironic post of year?
Chicos calling someone else a liar?
Quote from: LAZER on July 16, 2015, 10:22:25 AM
Even if you see the the source, the ball is flying 100mph into the stands. It's going to hit someone even if 100% of the fans are paying attention. The safety of fans shouldn't be dependent on how quick of hands they have.
And please stop it with the "softening of America" BS. It's ridiculous.
I was pointing out the difference with hockey and baseball.
The ball rarely flies out at 100mph. Sure, guys like Trout, etc, but that is not the norm. It's still travelling fast, don't get me wrong.
Yes, the softening of America is alive and well. You can call it BS, men are rolling in their graves at the continued softening. I'm all for safety, but I'm also for balancing very little risk vs the reward, tradition, etc. This is a complete overreaction to put nets foul pole to foul pole.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 17, 2015, 08:12:15 AM
I was pointing out the difference with hockey and baseball.
The ball rarely flies out at 100mph. Sure, guys like Trout, etc, but that is not the norm. It's still travelling fast, don't get me wrong.
Yes, the softening of America is alive and well. You can call it BS, men are rolling in their graves at the continued softening. I'm all for safety, but I'm also for balancing very little risk vs the reward, tradition, etc. This is a complete overreaction to put nets foul pole to foul pole.
America's standing in the world started downhill when the NFL installed pulley nets for extra points and field goals. About this time Viagra was also introduced.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on July 17, 2015, 09:27:53 AM
America's standing in the world started downhill when the NFL installed pulley nets for extra points and field goals. About this time Viagra was also introduced.
Slippery slope :)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 17, 2015, 08:12:15 AM
Yes, the softening of America is alive and well...men are rolling in their graves at the continued softening.
Speak for yourself, Bail Bondsman!
Every morning I emerge from my circus tent standing tall, proud, and erect. I usually have to wait about an hour before I can take my morning piss.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on July 17, 2015, 09:27:53 AM
America's standing in the world started downhill when the NFL installed pulley nets for extra points and field goals. About this time Viagra was also introduced.
:D
Quote from: keefe on July 17, 2015, 04:30:34 PM
Speak for yourself, Bail Bondsman!
Every morning I emerge from my circus tent standing tall, proud, and erect. I usually have to wait about an hour before I can take my morning piss.
Morning moose is always a good way to know you are alive. We agree.
I'll be at the game tonight, Red Sox v Halos. In foul ball line drive territory. It is a risk we are comfortable with.
And yes, if my dad were able to come back alive today and I took him to a game with nets from foul pole to foul pole, he'd ask to be reinserted into the ground. He wouldn't be alone. He was pragmatic as hell, and certainly didn't shun safety, but there is a point where things just go over the top to the level of ridiculousness.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 18, 2015, 08:36:26 AM
Morning moose is always a good way to know you are alive. We agree.
I'll be at the game tonight, Red Sox v Halos. In foul ball line drive territory. It is a risk we are comfortable with.
And yes, if my dad were able to come back alive today and I took him to a game with nets from foul pole to foul pole, he'd ask to be reinserted into the ground. He wouldn't be alone. He was pragmatic as hell, and certainly didn't shun safety, but there is a point where things just go over the top to the level of ridiculousness.
My dad would be in the exact same situation, but............he'd also not see much wrong in Mike Rice's motivational techniques.
I don't like the idea of extending the nets either as I pay attention to what is going on around me but i don't think it's softening of people. The nature of the experience is changing with ballpark apps and distractions, I don't see an issue with the environment changing in response to that.
The in-game experience that has changed is the ump now tosses a new ball out at the start of every side of an inning. They've killed Mound Ball and nobody cared.
An injury or hospitalization is a small price to pay when the "softening of America" is at stake.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 19, 2015, 11:01:13 AM
An injury or hospitalization is a small price to pay when the "softening of America" is at stake.
You need to ask your wife or mistress(es) that question...
Happy to report that despite raining weather, the family wasn't injured (mildly or seriously) by any foul balls last night. Nor was anyone else in the stadium.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on July 15, 2015, 03:22:40 PM
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.
Seems reasonable.
Just throwin' it out there....
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/in-split-second-9th-inning-stray-ball-fouls-fans-life-b99547082z1-319556091.html
I'm surprised that this thread started 7 days after the incident, yet nobody cited it.
Goes to show you that these things are happening more often than we realize. And not just in our backyard, but as we're discussing it.
A net stretching at least past the dugouts seems such a small price to pay to avoid this.
Quote from: tower912 on July 29, 2015, 02:50:34 PM
A net stretching at least past the dugouts seems such a small price to pay to avoid this.
Not when the softening of America is at stake.
Quote from: naginiF on July 18, 2015, 11:23:20 AM
The in-game experience that has changed is the ump now tosses a new ball out at the start of every side of an inning. They've killed Mound Ball and nobody cared.
I played Moundball at last night's Cubs/Rockies game. Nothing has changed.
Quote from: WI_inferiority_complexes on July 29, 2015, 05:51:28 PM
I played Moundball
A tie on the door in Schroeder meant that Moundball action was happening...
Quote from: tower912 on July 29, 2015, 02:50:34 PM
A net stretching at least past the dugouts seems such a small price to pay to avoid this.
Avoid what exactly? What are we avoiding, the 4 to 5 serious injuries caused by foul balls. I spoke to one of my buddies at the Angels over the weekend. He said they have more serious injuries from people walking down the stairs to their seats each year than foul balls and it isn't close. More injuries in the parking lot by people leaving the game than anything caused by foul balls.
So exactly what are we avoiding or solving for here...exactly?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 29, 2015, 09:48:11 PM
Avoid what exactly? What are we avoiding, the 4 to 5 serious injuries caused by foul balls. I spoke to one of my buddies at the Angels over the weekend. He said they have more serious injuries from people walking down the stairs to their seats each year than foul balls and it isn't close. More injuries in the parking lot by people leaving the game than anything caused by foul balls.
So exactly what are we avoiding or solving for here...exactly?
People getting hurt by foul balls.
I guess I don't understand your logic. Since more people get hurt falling down stairs, we don't need to take steps to keep more people safe from foul balls? That's like saying since relatively few people die from terrorist attacks when compared to cancer, we shouldn't take steps to prevent another terrorist attack.
It is a nonsensical argument.
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/mlb/tigers/2015/08/22/detroit-tigers-fan-struck-foul-ball/32176517/
Game was delayed about 15 minutes. The lady was sitting right behind the dugout. 96 mph fastball fouled off on a line. In the picture, you can see the lump is about the size of the baseball that struck her.
A kid got hurt the other day catching a homerun....we should put nets up in the outfield now and be reactive. If the ball hits the net, it is a home run............
Typical reply from a five year old. Carry everything to the stupidest extreme possible.
Nobody ever said there should be nets for the outfield fences. But EVERY one else understands the difference between a line shot over the dugout and a home run.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/players-urge-action-fan-hurt-foul-ball-185414221--mlb.html
Tsunami coming on this one.
Quote from: tower912 on August 23, 2015, 01:18:10 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/players-urge-action-fan-hurt-foul-ball-185414221--mlb.html
Tsunami coming on this one.
Chicos thinks the players are a bunch of hairy wet cats.
Well, due to the way they have played this year, I have said the same of some of those players. Eventually, somebody is going to get killed and this is going to get done. After a multi-million dollar payout to the family.
Quote from: tower912 on August 23, 2015, 01:18:10 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/players-urge-action-fan-hurt-foul-ball-185414221--mlb.html
Tsunami coming on this one.
::)
Justin Verlander still pitches? That was the biggest news to me.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 23, 2015, 01:22:02 PM
Chicos thinks the players are a bunch of hairy wet cats.
Nope. I think fans need to pay attention at games and that part of the game is foul balls come into the stands. Part of the game is players reach over and catch balls that are foul. Now, there will be people that say "one is too many"....but I'm sorry, those people shouldn't get in their car, board planes, get into a bath tub either.
While we're at it, let's put in mandatory pitch counts because someone could get hurt. Let's make sure wooden bats never break again, cuz someone could get hurt. Let's make sure every throw is perfect, because someone could get hurt. Let's make sure players don't dive for balls any longer, because someone could get hurt. Or hey, a fan could reach over for a ball from a home run or an outfielder tossing him a ball and fall to his death (it happened).
I'm heading to the beach with my kids right now...I hope I don't get some sand in my eyes....I pray there is a warning. I hope salt in my eyes doesn't sting....there really should be a warning. Or heaven forbid, I could drown because nature is a beast...I hope there is a waiver for me to sign.
If all you have is false equivalencies, you really don't have much of a point.
Wrigley fan hit today.
An interesting tidbit about the three highly publicized event of fans being hit.....anyone figure it out yet?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 23, 2015, 01:45:39 PM
::)
Justin Verlander still pitches? That was the biggest news to me.
Kate still catchin' his spitball, hey?
http://news.yahoo.com/bryant-2-hrs-fan-hurt-cubs-hand-braves-233200046--spt.html
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 23, 2015, 05:02:43 PM
Wrigley fan hit today.
An interesting tidbit about the three highly publicized event of fans being hit.....anyone figure it out yet?
None of them had conceal and carry permits to properly defend themselves? ;)
Survived the beach today...the risk of the water, sand, sharks, riptide, etc. Maybe because we were paying attention.
If people are afraid of getting hit, or don't feel safe, there are plenty of seats out of range of foul balls. If you don't want your kid to get hit, maybe sit in the upper deck, or in the outfield until they are old enough to bring their glove and catch the ball.
Quote from: naginiF on August 23, 2015, 07:15:10 PM
None of them had conceal and carry permits to properly defend themselves? ;)
Nope. My wife got it, in fact she pointed it out to me. I love that woman. She goes to games with me, diehard fan, keeps score in the program, pays attention. Must be the years as a Little League rep and team mom for so many teams....having a husband work for a Major League team and 5 brothers didn't hurt either. Mothers Day, she wants to go to the game....that's her ask...I can't think of another woman that actually asks for that each Mothers Day.
Her comments today to me after the Wrigley incident, "did you notice that almost all of these people being hurt are women? Why? I think I know why, most of them don't even want to be there and are tagging along. Or they don't understand the game enough and are gabbing too much to pay attention. It is like they are foul ball magnets for injuries because they aren't paying attention or don't understand what to look for. All you have to do is pay attention and this stuff would not happen. You want to gab, sit in the outfield or go somewhere where paying attention doesn't matter".
I looked at her. Smiled. Told her I loved her and thanked my lucky stars. I love that woman...daughter of a MU med school graduate and street smart with the best of them.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 23, 2015, 10:21:56 PM
Nope. My wife got it, in fact she pointed it out to me. I love that woman. She goes to games with me, diehard fan, keeps score in the program, pays attention. Must be the years as a Little League rep and team mom for so many teams....having a husband work for a Major League team and 5 brothers didn't hurt either. Mothers Day, she wants to go to the game....that's her ask...I can't think of another woman that actually asks for that each Mothers Day.
Her comments today to me after the Wrigley incident, "did you notice that almost all of these people being hurt are women? Why? I think I know why, most of them don't even want to be there and are tagging along. Or they don't understand the game enough and are gabbing too much to pay attention. It is like they are foul ball magnets for injuries because they aren't paying attention or don't understand what to look for. All you have to do is pay attention and this stuff would not happen. You want to gab, sit in the outfield or go somewhere where paying attention doesn't matter".
I looked at her. Smiled. Told her I loved her and thanked my lucky stars. I love that woman...daughter of a MU med school graduate and street smart with the best of them.
I take a baseball trip every year and try to sit behind the dugout on the shade side of the field. My wife tags along (in return for her owning the itinerary for most of the vacation). I tell her she has to be alert whenever a right hander is hitting when we are on the first base side and a lefty on the third base side.
Incidentally, we had a lucky great trip this year. We saw Iwakuma's no-hitter in Seattle, then saw Bumgarner throw a 3 hit shutout with 14 Ks and hit a double and a homer in SF, and saw the A's come back from a 4-1 deficit in the 8th to beat the Dodgers in extras. Oakland reminded me of Yankee Stadium in the late 70s with all the fights and drunks. You don't see that much anymore. My wife and son were appalled but it brought me back to my late teens. They threw about half the row two rows behind me out of the park for unruly behavior by the 5th inning and there was a good 20 person brawl across the field from us.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 23, 2015, 10:21:56 PM
Her comments today to me after the Wrigley incident, "did you notice that almost all of these people being hurt are women? Why? I think I know why, most of them don't even want to be there and are tagging along...
One of my all-time favorite radio calls was by Walt Frazier when a woman sitting in one of the first couple rows got conked by a basketball during a Knicks game. Clyde said something like, 'Typical woman, running her mouth and not paying attention to the game..."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 22, 2015, 11:51:52 AM
If the ball hits the net, it is a home run............
Well, that pretty much describes Wrigley Field right there.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 23, 2015, 10:21:56 PM
Her comments today to me after the Wrigley incident, "did you notice that almost all of these people being hurt are women? Why?
But if you eliminated the young, attractive women not paying attention to the game from Wrigley Field, then what would the Cubs broadcast show between pitches, between batters, during warmup pitches, before cutting to commercial, coming back from commercial, in the bumpers, visits to the mound, during the stretch, after the stretch, while a foul ball slices out of play, while there's a streaker on the field, while there's a squirrel on the field, while the pope is on the field, during replays, during rain delays, during brawls, and randomly while the ball is in play? Cubs fans would actually have to watch a
baseball game, and that's just cruel.
I think this is going to happen. They will probably extend from dugout to dugout (I really don't think there is need to go any farther than that) people will be pissed at first, then realize it doesn't make much difference or they will get acclimated to it and it won't be a big deal.
Quote from: buckchuckler on August 24, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
I think this is going to happen. They will probably extend from dugout to dugout (I really don't think there is need to go any farther than that) people will be pissed at first, then realize it doesn't make much difference or they will get acclimated to it and it won't be a big deal.
The biggest reaction will be on this board.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 23, 2015, 09:44:05 PM
Survived the beach today...the risk of the water, sand, sharks, riptide, etc. Maybe because we were paying attention.
What does that have to do with a line shot over the dugout giving you less than 1 second to react.
Yor cowardly little a$$ wouldn't get within 50 miles of the ocean if you had less than 1 second to react to any life threatening danger in the water or on the beach.
But as usual, you act like a 5-year old and carry every argument to an idiotic extreme.
Quote from: CTWarrior on August 24, 2015, 07:33:28 AM
I take a baseball trip every year and try to sit behind the dugout on the shade side of the field. My wife tags along (in return for her owning the itinerary for most of the vacation). I tell her she has to be alert whenever a right hander is hitting when we are on the first base side and a lefty on the third base side.
And if a shot was hit directly at your wife's head, she would have less than one second to react. Hopefully you have good insurance.
People on their phones is half the problem here as well I think.
Quote from: brandx on August 24, 2015, 12:56:10 PM
And if a shot was hit directly at your wife's head, she would have less than one second to react. Hopefully you have good insurance.
I'm starting to think Chico's is right. I do not have the slightest worry about this while attending baseball games. Pay attention and you lower your odds of getting hit from 1 in million to 1 in a billion. Of course I am making those numbers up, but the odds of getting hit and hurt are infintessimal and not worth worrying about beyond watching the game.
Quote from: CTWarrior on August 24, 2015, 02:40:53 PM
I'm starting to think Chico's is right. I do not have the slightest worry about this while attending baseball games. Pay attention and you lower your odds of getting hit from 1 in million to 1 in a billion. Of course I am making those numbers up, but the odds of getting hit and hurt are infintessimal and not worth worrying about beyond watching the game.
I don't worry about it either. But then I played ball all of my life. I would have no trouble reacting.
But if a shot was hit at your wife or your child, they would not be able to react as you or I would - even if they were paying attention.
Quote from: CTWarrior on August 24, 2015, 02:40:53 PM
I'm starting to think Chico's is right. I do not have the slightest worry about this while attending baseball games. Pay attention and you lower your odds of getting hit from 1 in million to 1 in a billion. Of course I am making those numbers up, but the odds of getting hit and hurt are infintessimal and not worth worrying about beyond watching the game.
Do we have any evidence that the people who have been hit/injured weren't paying attention?
Also, it's more like a 1 in 42,000 chance, according to a Bloomberg analysis.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-09/baseball-caught-looking-as-fouls-injure-1750-fans-a-year
Quote from: Pakuni on August 24, 2015, 03:01:57 PM
Do we have any evidence that the people who have been hit/injured weren't paying attention?
Also, it's more like a 1 in 42,000 chance, according to a Bloomberg analysis.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-09/baseball-caught-looking-as-fouls-injure-1750-fans-a-year
And there are more and better fastball pitchers throwing at 95 mph+ than at any time in baseball history. Which means more foul balls of this type.
Witnessed a small child get hit in the head. Midwest League game, foul ball down the left field line, behind the visiting team's bullpen, grass covered hill, father saw the ball, jumped up for it, missed it, it hit his young child in the head and ricocheted 30 ft in the opposite direction. Nets are coming.
Quote from: tower912 on August 24, 2015, 03:57:20 PM
Witnessed a small child get hit in the head. Midwest League game, foul ball down the left field line, behind the visiting team's bullpen, grass covered hill, father saw the ball, jumped up for it, missed it, it hit his young child in the head and ricocheted 30 ft in the opposite direction. Nets are coming.
That small child either A: was not paying attention, so it's his fault. B: His dad was too slow to react, and it's his fault. Wussification of America. Man I wish it was 1960 all over again, life was so much better back then.
Quote from: CTWarrior on August 24, 2015, 02:40:53 PM
I'm starting to think Chico's is right. I do not have the slightest worry about this while attending baseball games. Pay attention and you lower your odds of getting hit from 1 in million to 1 in a billion. Of course I am making those numbers up, but the odds of getting hit and hurt are infintessimal and not worth worrying about beyond watching the game.
I am trying to think of an entertainment event in today's society that requires you to pay attention for 200-250 separate instances, over the course of three hours, at the risk of serious injury. (Even though that risk is relatively minimal.) Especially when the venue engages in a bunch of activity to ensure that you aren't always paying attention.
Quote from: Benny B on August 24, 2015, 09:11:07 AM
But if you eliminated the young, attractive women not paying attention to the game from Wrigley Field, then what would the Cubs broadcast show between pitches, between batters, during warmup pitches, before cutting to commercial, coming back from commercial, in the bumpers, visits to the mound, during the stretch, after the stretch, while a foul ball slices out of play, while there's a streaker on the field, while there's a squirrel on the field, while the pope is on the field, during replays, during rain delays, during brawls, and randomly while the ball is in play? Cubs fans would actually have to watch a baseball game, and that's just cruel.
I miss Arnie Harris.
A *few* years ago, Barry Foote busted a window in an apartment on Waveland. What if a young mother was in that room nursing her 7 week old baby at that exact time? Huh, huh?
Dave Kingman almost took out Ronnie Woo Woo in the 3rd inning against the Phillies. Huh, huh?
They should put Wrigley in a bubble to protect Chicago.
Quote from: real chili 83 on August 24, 2015, 08:07:48 PM
I miss Arnie Harris.
A *few* years ago, Barry Foote busted a window in an apartment on Waveland. What if a young mother was in that room nursing her 7 week old baby at that exact time? Huh, huh?
Dave Kingman almost took out Ronnie Woo Woo in the 3rd inning against the Phillies. Huh, huh?
They should put Wrigley in a bubble to protect Chicago.
Too bad Kingman missed.
Quote from: CTWarrior on August 24, 2015, 02:40:53 PM
I'm starting to think Chico's is right. I do not have the slightest worry about this while attending baseball games. Pay attention and you lower your odds of getting hit from 1 in million to 1 in a billion. Of course I am making those numbers up, but the odds of getting hit and hurt are infintessimal and not worth worrying about beyond watching the game.
Exactly. Besides, my wife would use her beer to snag the ball. She's a bad ass, high school athlete....unfortunately has gone through some longer term illnesses the last decade, but she'd do just fine.
Pay attention is the key. I'd bet a ton of money if there was video of the people being hit, I'd bet 95% of them were not paying attention. Looking the other way, talking to a friend, looking at the phone, or just spacing out.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 24, 2015, 04:22:19 PM
I am trying to think of an entertainment event in today's society that requires you to pay attention for 200-250 separate instances, over the course of three hours, at the risk of serious injury. (Even though that risk is relatively minimal.) Especially when the venue engages in a bunch of activity to ensure that you aren't always paying attention.
Sultan, in all honesty next time you go to a game look at what is going on between pitches. There are audible sounds like the sound effects, but no pyrotechnics, nothing moving on the scoreboard, etc. This is on purpose. Sure, there's stuff on the scoreboard to read, but that doesn't change during the same batter except the count.
We are able to go to the movies just fine, watch all of it while paying attention. Or watch our kids in the ocean or pool.
You want to know the problem, it isn't the 200 to 250 instances, it is that baseball is very boring to many people who don't understand the game. That's ok, I don't blame them, but so many casual fans that get bored easily. If there were high speed car chases going on, or whatever people get honed in on, they would have no problem. It's the nature of the game, but that doesn't make it right to change 100+ years of baseball over the remote chance you could get hit because you can't pay attention. That's on the customer.
Quote from: buckchuckler on August 24, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
I think this is going to happen. They will probably extend from dugout to dugout (I really don't think there is need to go any farther than that) people will be pissed at first, then realize it doesn't make much difference or they will get acclimated to it and it won't be a big deal.
If they go dugout to dugout, it wouldn't be horrible but certainly not ideal. Still overkill, but I suspect some people could get behind it. It's the bedwetters that want it foul pole to foul pole. I wouldn't love it dugout to dugout, but it would be palatable. Only downside is the fan interaction with the players right now when they toss balls into the crowd, which has been going on forever. That would be lost, and a shame.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 24, 2015, 10:58:46 PM
Exactly. Besides, my wife would use her beer to snag the ball. She's a bad ass, high school athlete....unfortunately has gone through some longer term illnesses the last decade, but she'd do just fine.
Pay attention is the key. I'd bet a ton of money if there was video of the people being hit, I'd bet 95% of them were not paying attention. Looking the other way, talking to a friend, looking at the phone, or just spacing out.
I agree with you for the most part on the way it should be and it will sadden me when the nets are extended just as I was saddened when the nets went up in the NHL
Unfortunately, baseball isn't an overly exciting game and we live in a society where children that are barely able to talk are pacified by being given smartphones to play with.
Swing and a miss for technology in this regard
Quote from: MUsoxfan on August 24, 2015, 11:06:09 PM
I agree with you for the most part on the way it should be and it will sadden me when the nets are extended just as I was saddened when the nets went up in the NHL
Unfortunately, baseball isn't an overly exciting game and we live in a society where children that are barely able to talk are pacified by being given smartphones to play with.
Swing and a miss for technology in this regard
According to Tower and Brandx, you must be anti-safety....clearly I am. :o ::)
Quote from: MUsoxfan on August 24, 2015, 11:06:09 PM
I agree with you for the most part on the way it should be and it will sadden me when the nets are extended just as I was saddened when the nets went up in the NHL
Weird.
I was saddened when a little girl died because there were no nets despite an all-too-obvious (to anyone who's actually attended an NHL game) safety hazard.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 26, 2015, 09:28:31 AM
Weird.
I was saddened when a little girl died because there were no nets despite an all-too-obvious (to anyone who's actually attended an NHL game) safety hazard.
One death in the league's history and they put up a net. No one was whining about history, tradition or the pussification of America. Now most people accept it for what it is.
But of course with baseball there is this need to worry about tradition somehow being more important than fan safety. Very odd.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 26, 2015, 09:28:31 AM
Weird.
I was saddened when a little girl died because there were no nets despite an all-too-obvious (to anyone who's actually attended an NHL game) safety hazard.
I was saddened by the little girl dying also....just as I'm saddened by all the little girls and boys dying every day that aren't protected by a net, but just sitting there sucking their thumb, chillin, waiting for the big day.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 26, 2015, 09:28:31 AM
Weird.
I was saddened when a little girl died because there were no nets despite an all-too-obvious (to anyone who's actually attended an NHL game) safety hazard.
I'm with you on this. I was really bummed out when the nets went up, but it took me all of like 2 games to get used to it and forget they were there
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 26, 2015, 09:45:09 AM
One death in the league's history and they put up a net. No one was whining about history, tradition or the pussification of America. Now most people accept it for what it is.
But of course with baseball there is this need to worry about tradition somehow being more important than fan safety. Very odd.
Very poor analogy. Extremely poor.
There wasn't an massive onslaught against the nets in NHL, despite what a few of you here want to state. In hockey, the puck moves very fast from one player to another, can be deflected, and it is black (hard to see). The puck also has sharp edges. A puck is also extremely hard. Hockey is played with the lights down in many arenas (ice is lit, fans have lights lowered...making it harder to see). In fact, the young girl who died in Columbus died when a slapshot was deflected by a defenseman and changed the trajectory of the shot.
Baseball is a S L O W game. Despite that, nets have been up since the 1890's in baseball. The nets are ALREADY THERE. In baseball, the foul ball can only come from one place...the batter. Watch the batter, you know where the ball is coming from. It is also white. It is also round, with no edges. It is also softer than a puck. You still have day games, and night games the stands are lit every bit as much as the field (not the case for hockey). On average there are 48 foul balls per game that reach the stands. Despite that number multiplied by all the games played (162) by all the teams, over 100+ years there has been ONE person killed at the MLB level by a foul ball. ONE.
In hockey, there are only 80 games, and on average only 12 pucks are used per NHL game. Did you know there have been games that used one puck? It's been awhile, 1979....check it out at the NHL Hall of Fame. There were many fewer teams playing in the NHL the last 100 years than the MLB, and many many many fewer games. Yet the injuries were higher for fans in hockey.
It comes down to rates of injury. No one is against safety, but at what cost to the experience and the game? When is it overkill? Statistically speaking, foul pole to foul pole is a bedwetter pussification example if I have ever seen one. Beyond ridiculous and the comparison to the NHL nets, equally ridiculous. MLB already has nets behind the batter which is equivalent high level action that are placed for the NHL games.
Very poor comparison, on all levels. The ball, the puck, how the game is played, the action, and the incidents.
LOL.
When your defense of nets in the NHL versus MLB contains the phrase "It is also softer than a puck," it is a poor comparison. The fact is those white, edgeless, "softer" baseballs can do great bodily harm. And I would rather have people be safer and not really worry about "the cost to the experience of the game."
And I have never said I want nets foul pole to foul pole. I would like them to be reasonably extended to prevent injuries where the most serious instances have occurred. And I think that will happen.
Apparently two different projectiles being jettisoned into crowds off of sticks by world-class athletes is an apples to oranges comparison. Who knew...
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 26, 2015, 10:11:35 AM
LOL.
When your defense of nets in the NHL versus MLB contains the phrase "It is also softer than a puck," it is a poor comparison. The fact is those white, edgeless, "softer" baseballs can do great bodily harm. And I would rather have people be safer and not really worry about "the cost to the experience of the game."
And I have never said I want nets foul pole to foul pole. I would like them to be reasonably extended to prevent injuries where the most serious instances have occurred. And I think that will happen.
Ignore all the facts you wish. The hardness of the object absolutely matters, but feel free to throw that one out. Comparing a puck to a baseball is a joke. Comparing the game of hockey to baseball, is a joke. The way the game is lit. Where the action is coming from. Etc, etc. Enormous fallacy on your part and Pakuni's and easily taken apart. A ten year old could do it.
And I never said I wasn't against extending the nets slightly, but the topic of this thread was about extending the nets from foul pole to foul pole, which is what a lot of bedwetters want to do. It is RIDICULOUS to do that. We haven't even gotten into the aspect how it changes the game itself by not allowing players to catch foul balls.
Quote from: MUsoxfan on August 26, 2015, 10:17:28 AM
Apparently two different projectiles being jettisoned into crowds off of sticks by world-class athletes is an apples to oranges comparison. Who knew...
It is. How can that be denied? Projectile matters. Shape, size, color, hardness, form factor. Where it is "jettisoned" from the crowd matters. From a known location, or from an unknown location that can also be redirected by still another player's stick.
Now we all know..... ;D
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 26, 2015, 10:25:49 AM
Ignore all the facts you wish. The hardness of the object absolutely matters, but feel free to throw that one out. Comparing a puck to a baseball is a joke. Comparing the game of hockey to baseball, is a joke. The way the game is lit. Where the action is coming from. Etc, etc. Enormous fallacy on your part and Pakuni's and easily taken apart. A ten year old could do it.
Your comparisons make no sense because people are getting hurt by foul balls no matter the shape, color and hardness of the baseball.
Quote from: MUsoxfan on August 26, 2015, 09:57:08 AM
I'm with you on this. I was really bummed out when the nets went up, but it took me all of like 2 games to get used to it and forget they were there
Exactly.
I've sat many times behind the nets and the only way to notice them is to try to notice them. Truly a small price to pay.
The only downside is that every man who has spent a game (or more!) behind these nets has since grown breasts, lost their Adam's apple and seen an unnatural spike in their estrogen levels. Cause, you know, wussification of 'Merica.
Jenner goes to games, hey?
Quote from: Pakuni on August 26, 2015, 10:34:04 AM
Exactly.
I've sat many times behind the nets and the only way to notice them is to try to notice them. Truly a small price to pay.
The only downside is that every man who has spent a game (or more!) behind these nets has since grown breasts, lost their Adam's apple and seen an unnatural spike in their estrogen levels. Cause, you know, wussification of 'Merica.
Yep. It's like stoopid seatbelts. And airbags. And anti-lock brakes. And high, reinforced fences at NASCAR races. And football helmets. And all that other wussy stuff that government forces on us, stuff our forefathers didn't have to endure.
So what if average life expectancy was about 60 then? It's still when men were men ... and if they weren't, they at least kept it behind closed doors.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 26, 2015, 10:31:15 AM
Your comparisons make no sense because people are getting hurt by foul balls no matter the shape, color and hardness of the baseball.
At such a low rate to make it silly that this conversation of foul pole to foul pole is even happening.
You could be hurt by whiffle ball if it hit you right. Let me remind you, the hockey puck comparisons came from you and Pakuni, not me. That's why I used them to show how terrible your analogies were.
Quote from: MU82 on August 27, 2015, 10:50:12 PM
Yep. It's like stoopid seatbelts. And airbags. And anti-lock brakes. And high, reinforced fences at NASCAR races. And football helmets. And all that other wussy stuff that government forces on us, stuff our forefathers didn't have to endure.
So what if average life expectancy was about 60 then? It's still when men were men ... and if they weren't, they at least kept it behind closed doors.
Silly. Unbelievably silly comparisons.
Airbags save lives...many lives and were needed because thousands of people die a year. (note, airbags also kill people, too, but we'll let that slide for now because they do more good than harm). ONE MLB fan has died in history from a foul ball
Seatbelts were needed because they save many lives....thousands of lives per year are lost. When you are in a car accident, you have a good shot of serious injury or death. ONE MLB fan has died in history from a foul ball
Reinforced fences at racing facilities. 100's of racing spectators have died over the years. ONE MLB fan has died in history from a foul ball
So on and so forth.
Again, not against safety. It comes with a balance. If baseball patrons were being seriously injured or killed at alarming rates, then I'd be all for it. The chances of being seriously hurt at a MLB game is less than being struck by lightning. Those are the facts, not my opinion.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 29, 2015, 02:29:20 PM
Again, not against safety. It comes with a balance. If baseball patrons were being seriously injured or killed at alarming rates, then I'd be all for it. The chances of being seriously hurt at a MLB game is less than being struck by lightning. Those are the facts, not my opinion.
People are getting hurt at alarming rates in certain sections not protected by netting now.
Am I safe tonight?
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 29, 2015, 02:48:21 PM
People are getting hurt at alarming rates in certain sections not protected by netting now.
Because idiots can't pay attention to the game like they used to. The number of balls hit into the stands has not changed significantly in decades. The difference is the fans inability to pay attention. The "alarming" number is a myth. No different statistically than years past.
We survived. Went to a St. Paul Saints game. Team is owned by Mike Veeck and Bill Murray.
Lots of characters during the game, hired by the Saints to get the crowd going. Kinda distracting. VERY DANGEROUS.
By the way, the quality of competition was great. Tremendous athletes.
Good beer prices too. Had a 16 oz. of 312 Ale. $6. If this was a Twins game, that would have cost $47.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 12, 2015, 11:22:26 PM
Because idiots can't pay attention to the game like they used to. The number of balls hit into the stands has not changed significantly in decades. The difference is the fans inability to pay attention. The "alarming" number is a myth. No different statistically than years past.
Actually that's something that I would differ on. With the higher amount of hits, the faster throwing, faster swinging, and overall bigger players. I'm almost positive that the amount of line drives and velocity of the balls are much higher then in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Quote from: theburreffect2 on September 12, 2015, 11:51:18 PM
Actually that's something that I would differ on. With the higher amount of hits, the faster throwing, faster swinging, and overall bigger players. I'm almost positive that the amount of line drives and velocity of the balls are much higher then in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
I don't know, have there been more hits? I'm sure the data is out there. Foul balls according to the site I sent on hasn't changed. In terms of the faster stuff, I don't know on that one either. An awful lot of guys were juicing and enormous for a number of years in the 1990's and early 2000's.
They did it boys.
As they should have.
Only the Royals, from what I can tell.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/royals-add-netting-kauffman-stadium-improve-safety-192120134--mlb.html
What a bunch of losers! They'll never win anything and the fans will never accept it!!
Quote from: MU82 on February 17, 2016, 04:04:03 PM
Only the Royals, from what I can tell.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/royals-add-netting-kauffman-stadium-improve-safety-192120134--mlb.html
What a bunch of losers! They'll never win anything and the fans will never accept it!!
And I don't think it's foul pole-to-foul pole. I think it's just out toward the end of the dugout. And it looks like Minnesota is doing it too. (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14793313/kansas-city-royals-plan-extend-netting-end-dugouts)
Funny how they add Minnesota in there as an afterthought.
Detroit is doing it to the ends of the dugout.
Dugouts is fine, going beyond dugouts is a joke.
Although people that had seats behind the dugout, where I've sat many games, some are going to be pissed because that is prime area for players to toss balls to kids, etc.
Overall I'm just glad that the one person killed in MLB history by a fall ball in 130 years will not reach 2.
Truly, this is a precursor to the ruination of American society.
Where's Reagan to demand: "Take down those nets!"
Quote from: tower912 on February 17, 2016, 05:04:47 PM
Detroit is doing it to the ends of the dugout.
Detroit needs to put up bullet proof glass in parts of the city. Chicago can assist.
Quote from: MU82 on February 17, 2016, 10:03:05 PM
Truly, this is a precursor to the ruination of American society.
Where's Reagan to demand: "Take down those nets!"
One day we will truly miss the days where people could get severely injured by a foul ball and when top college quarterbacks could expose themselves to female trainers without reprocussion.
This seemed relevant
(http://i.imgur.com/8UN1iG8.jpg)
Chicos thinks that dad is pussyfing his kid.
Dad is the hero...next.
I hope they fix this frightful scenario, soon
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/ea17edc3e3b693c861eb26f3e9c8c8b39fb82c84/c=0-101-3622-2825&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/04/15//1397542554000-USATSI-7872120.jpg)
(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5673803e72f2c15b028b69e5-1190-625/jason-days-wife-was-injured-when-lebron-james-dove-into-the-stands.jpg)
(http://a4.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2015%2F1217%2Fr37119_1296x729_16-9.jpg&w=570)
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 06, 2016, 07:35:52 PM
Chicos thinks that dad is kittenfing his kid.
Obviously should have let the kid get hit to teach him a lesson about looking at a phone during the ball game.
Sigh ... just more wussification of America.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 12, 2015, 11:22:26 PM
Because idiots can't pay attention to the game like they used to. The number of balls hit into the stands has not changed significantly in decades. The difference is the fans inability to pay attention. The "alarming" number is a myth. No different statistically than years past.
Idiot kid can't pay attention. Dad should've let get hit, to teach him a lesson.
Quote from: Skitch on March 06, 2016, 07:29:03 PM
This seemed relevant
(http://i.imgur.com/8UN1iG8.jpg)
I love this picture. Dad is just so cool about it. I can pretty much guarantee that he has a beer in that other hand...and that he didn't spill a drop.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 07, 2016, 10:54:50 AM
I love this picture. Dad is just so cool about it. I can pretty much guarantee that he has a beer in that other hand...and that he didn't spill a drop.
Do we know for sure that's his dad? If so, good for him... but also bad for him that his kid is an idiot.
Quote from: Benny B on March 07, 2016, 10:02:36 PM
Do we know for sure that's his dad? If so, good for him... but also bad for him that his kid is an idiot.
Actually, I have no idea if that's his dad. Whoever it is...he was pretty cool about it.
Quote from: Benny B on March 07, 2016, 10:02:36 PM
Do we know for sure that's his dad? If so, good for him... but also bad for him that his kid is an idiot.
His kid is an "idiot?"
Wow.
Quote from: Benny B on March 07, 2016, 10:02:36 PM
Do we know for sure that's his dad? If so, good for him... but also bad for him that his kid is an idiot.
I'd blame the dad. When go to games, rules are simple. Smart phones in pockets during live play. You want to bring them out, between innings only or go tot he concourse.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 08, 2016, 09:53:30 AM
I'd blame the dad. When go to games, rules are simple. Smart phones in pockets during live play. You want to bring them out, between innings only or go tot he concourse.
We disagree somewhat about extending the nets, but we agree about this. It's up to parents to teach their kids about dangerous situations and to make sure they are safe -- even if they might appear obvious to adults. This kid's parents (who might or might not be the one blocking the bat) should have taught him to pay attention to the action on the field.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 08, 2016, 10:20:00 AM
We disagree somewhat about extending the nets, but we agree about this. It's up to parents to teach their kids about dangerous situations and to make sure they are safe -- even if they might appear obvious to adults. This kid's parents (who might or might not be the one blocking the bat) should have taught him to pay attention to the action on the field.
Yep.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 08, 2016, 09:53:30 AM
I'd blame the dad. When go to games, rules are simple. Smart phones in pockets during live play. You want to bring them out, between innings only or go tot he concourse.
Chicos said something we can all agree with!!!!!!!!
Kid should take personal responsibility for himself. Not always depending on others, and being a taker. Kid has to have some skin in the game.
I used to tell my kids this and it always worked:
"Do what I say, or I will beat you within an inch of your life ...
... again."
Quote from: Benny B on March 07, 2016, 10:02:36 PM
Do we know for sure that's his dad? If so, good for him... but also bad for him that his kid is an idiot.
It was, indeed, the kid's dad. More info. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/sports/a-flying-baseball-bat-a-dads-instinct-and-a-photograph.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0)
Also, it's interesting to see the entire series of photos (http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/10100857-74/bat-ortiz-pirates), even if it is disappointing to see that Dad didn't have a beer in his other hand.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 08, 2016, 10:20:00 AM
We disagree somewhat about extending the nets, but we agree about this. It's up to parents to teach their kids about dangerous situations and to make sure they are safe -- even if they might appear obvious to adults. This kid's parents (who might or might not be the one blocking the bat) should have taught him to pay attention to the action on the field.
For the record, I said I was fine with extending them to the end of the dugout. Beyond that effects the game play, the ability of players to catch foul balls, etc. I'm not wild about extending them to end of the dugout, but I could live with it. Having sat in the seats behind the dugout, I like it when the players are coming back in, tossing balls to the kids, etc. That will be gone, that's a nice tradition.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2016, 09:02:11 AM
For the record, I said I was fine with extending them to the end of the dugout. Beyond that effects the game play, the ability of players to catch foul balls, etc. I'm not wild about extending them to end of the dugout, but I could live with it. Having sat in the seats behind the dugout, I like it when the players are coming back in, tossing balls to the kids, etc. That will be gone, that's a nice tradition.
Must be nice to be a 1%'er
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2016, 09:02:11 AM
For the record, I said I was fine with extending them to the end of the dugout. Beyond that effects the game play, the ability of players to catch foul balls, etc. I'm not wild about extending them to end of the dugout, but I could live with it. Having sat in the seats behind the dugout, I like it when the players are coming back in, tossing balls to the kids, etc. That will be gone, that's a nice tradition.
I hope you let Rob Manfred know what you could live with, what you're not wild about, etc.
I'm certain that if the commish only knew exactly what Chicos wanted, he would adjust or enact policies accordingly.
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 09, 2016, 02:56:00 PM
Must be nice to be a 1%'er
We can all sit there....stubhub.com
Or, you need to know a few people and work in the industry.
Quote from: MU82 on March 09, 2016, 05:05:35 PM
I hope you let Rob Manfred know what you could live with, what you're not wild about, etc.
I'm certain that if the commish only knew exactly what Chicos wanted, he would adjust or enact policies accordingly.
I didn't. Don't know the man, never met Rob. Met Bud several times, but not Rob. You're right, of course, it doesn't particularly matter what I or you think. They will do what they will do, which is often reactionary in nature. That's how our world works.
Now, who is for protecting the 1%ers at the NBA games in the first 2 rows? Or men's NCAA games....something has to be done to stop this scurge of injuries, and bodily fluids exposing these poor, innocent children and adults.
WHEN WILL PEOPLE WAKE UP?HOW MANY HURT PEOPLE IS IT GOING TO TAKE?BUILD THAT WALL....or netting....save the children(http://binaryapi.ap.org/74e2a7b5aec24829a102ed1e90cf0f59/460x.jpg)
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/06/09/50200262_h37483576-c3bb7d95bf8d106695e64ab83b9a22ae433e6810-s300-c85.jpg)
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/article27204962.ece/BINARY/w620/web-raptors10sp4.JPG)
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 07, 2016, 10:54:50 AM
I love this picture. Dad is just so cool about it. I can pretty much guarantee that he has a beer in that other hand...and that he didn't spill a drop.
I'll bet didn't even swallow his chew
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2016, 09:02:11 AM
For the record, I said I was fine with extending them to the end of the dugout. Beyond that effects the game play, the ability of players to catch foul balls, etc. I'm not wild about extending them to end of the dugout, but I could live with it. Having sat in the seats behind the dugout, I like it when the players are coming back in, tossing balls to the kids, etc. That will be gone, that's a nice tradition.
If only we could find major league baseball players with the arm strength to toss a baseball over a net.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 10, 2016, 02:40:45 PM
If only we could find major league baseball players with the arm strength to toss a baseball over a net.
Yeah, 60 feet high, then it comes down because someone wasn't paying attention again.....I doubt you will see players doing that.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 10, 2016, 02:54:16 PM
Yeah, 60 feet high, then it comes down because someone wasn't paying attention again.....I doubt you will see players doing that.
Which teams are building nets 60 feet high down the foul lines?
Quote from: Pakuni on March 10, 2016, 03:04:36 PM
Which teams are building nets 60 feet high down the foul lines?
They're connecting them to the second level decking in most cases, some going as high as 60 feet. Others, as low as 24 feet. Depends on the configuration of the stadium.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 10, 2016, 03:16:57 PM
They're connecting them to the second level decking in most cases, some going as high as 60 feet. Others, as low as 24 feet. Depends on the configuration of the stadium.
I'm with Chicos on this one. I doubt players will be throwing baseballs over the net for kids to catch. First off, if you're worried about people not paying attention during game action, people are far less likely to be paying attention in this scenario. Secondly, a ball thrown like that is less likely to get to the particular person to whom the player was throwing the ball to (usually a kid with a same team cap on in my experience) and more likely to be caught by some obnoxious jerk. Maybe kids in the cheaper seats further from the dugout will get a few extra balls tossed their way.
As I said back when this thread started, I don't like the net being extended and I tend to agree that it is an overreaction, but it is coming and no sense worrying about it.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 10, 2016, 02:40:45 PM
If only we could find major league baseball players with the arm strength to toss a baseball over a net.
I bet when Braun was playing third base he could have given that net a run for its money during live play. Fans had to have their gloves at the ready when he made a throw.
Quote from: cheebs09 on March 10, 2016, 05:18:04 PM
I bet when Braun was playing third base he could have given that net a run for its money during live play. Fans had to have their gloves at the ready when he made a throw.
Goose Gossage just destroyed Braun and so many others today. Loved it. Back when men were men playing baseball.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14943065/goose-gossage-rips-jose-bautista-toronto-blue-jays-nerds-ruining-baseball
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2016, 05:24:01 PM
BUILD THAT WALL....or netting....save the children
Heisy's man Trump will build it!
Quote from: MU82 on March 10, 2016, 10:50:58 PM
Heisy's man Trump will build it!
And make the sissies pay for it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 10, 2016, 10:12:08 PM
Goose Gossage just destroyed Braun and so many others today. Loved it. Back when men were men playing baseball.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14943065/goose-gossage-rips-jose-bautista-toronto-blue-jays-nerds-ruining-baseball
I guess as someone in my late 20s, I felt his comments were laughable. Heaven forbid they show a little emotion. The Braun comments I agree with a little bit. Stats guys ruining baseball I don't. I love what Stearns has done with the Brewers so far. I hope it works.
As someone in their fifties, heaven forbid you act like you've done it before.
Gossage is a joke. Compare him to the class that Joey-Bats showed when told of Gossage's comment.
Gossage is the same little whiny-a$$ that he was when he played.
Quote from: brandx on March 12, 2016, 02:33:11 PM
Gossage is a joke. Compare him to the class that Joey-Bats showed when told of Gossage's comment.
Gossage is the same little whiny-a$$ that he was when he played.
I was a huge Goose fan during his playing days, but he has become quite the whiny old "hey you kids get outa my yard" dope.
I'm a 50-something year old guy who likes stuff like bat flips and Cam's "dabs." And when I was a young'n, I liked Billy White Shoes, the Eagles' dice rolls, Mutombo's finger wags, etc. It IS supposed to be fun, right?
Quote from: MU82 on March 12, 2016, 03:41:37 PM
I was a huge Goose fan during his playing days, but he has become quite the whiny old "hey you kids get outa my yard" dope.
I'm a 50-something year old guy who likes stuff like bat flips and Cam's "dabs." And when I was a young'n, I liked Billy White Shoes, the Eagles' dice rolls, Mutombo's finger wags, etc. It IS supposed to be fun, right?
Where did all this stuffy attitude come from in baseball? Football, basketball, tennis, golf, soccer, hockey, auto racing, horse racing - guys always celebrate. But ... baseball... gotta show some respect. This stuff is carried on by the Gossages and LaRussas of the world.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2016, 05:17:12 PM
We can all sit there....stubhub.com
Or, you need to know a fw people and work in the industry.
Or work for a company that has good seats.
The first firm I worked for after graduating from MU had seats in the old Brewers stadium right behind the dugout. We used to set our beers on top of the dugout roof. I was making $19K a year. Hardly a 1% salary. Not even back in the stone ages when I was 22.
Quote from: warriorchick on March 12, 2016, 04:39:39 PM
Or work for a company that has good seats.
The first firm I worked for after graduating from MU had seats in the old Brewers stadium right behind the dugout. We used to set our beers on top of the dugout roof. I was making $19K a year. Hardly a 1% salary. Not even back in the stone ages when I was 22.
I was in the same situation. Front row right at the back end of the 1st base dugout. Where the kids all gathered to get autographs before the game.
We were almost right in line with the Shortstop's throws to 1st base so we would get quite a few balls in warmups. Supplied a lot of kids with balls that they got autographed.
I admire Goose not cow towing, I don't agree with everything he said, but I like that he had the nuts to say it and is not backing down.
Quote from: cinbog on March 12, 2016, 01:49:43 PM
As someone in their fifties, heaven forbid you act like you've done it before.
Oh brother...
Goose is dumb and so are unwritten rules.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 13, 2016, 08:10:02 PM
Oh brother...
Goose is dumb and so are unwritten rules.
Someone who has never done it would say that
I miss Goose Gossage's good ol' days of baseball.
You know, with the widespread cocaine abuse.
The use of amphetamines (by none other than the Goose, among many others).
The introduction of steroids into the game.
The creation of baseball academies to exploit young Latin players.
Owner collusion.
Labor unrest.
Yep, that's when men were men, I tell ya.
No, but really, Goose is a moron.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 14, 2016, 10:31:52 AM
I miss Goose Gossage's good ol' days of baseball.
You know, with the widespread cocaine abuse.
The use of amphetamines (by none other than the Goose, among many others).
The introduction of steroids into the game.
The creation of baseball academies to exploit young Latin players.
Owner collusion.
Labor unrest.
Yep, that's when men were men, I tell ya.
No, but really, Goose is a moron.
I liked this, Pakuni!
Yep, as soon as somebody starts reminiscing about the good old days, realize that the "old" is usually far more accurate than the "good." And I admit, sometimes I'm one of the guilty oldies!
Quote from: Pakuni on March 14, 2016, 10:31:52 AM
I miss Goose Gossage's good ol' days of baseball.
You know, with the widespread cocaine abuse.
The use of amphetamines (by none other than the Goose, among many others).
The introduction of steroids into the game.
The creation of baseball academies to exploit young Latin players.
Owner collusion.
Labor unrest.
Yep, that's when men were men, I tell ya.
No, but really, Goose is a moron.
Yup, those baseball academies did nothing but exploit....no players from those countries were discovered as a result and made millions for themselves and their families. No local jobs were created...all exploitation.
Union unrest has been going on in sports for decades. About to wind back up with MLBthis year
I'm so glad cocaine abuse has been eradicated...must be the war on drugs.
Amphetamines? Yup.
That's why nothing is perfect in one era to the next, one decade to the next, nor is anyone claiming such a thing. But some decades and past traditions are better.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 21, 2016, 02:03:42 AM
Yup, those baseball academies did nothing but exploit....no players from those countries were discovered as a result and made millions for themselves and their families. No local jobs were created...all exploitation.
So, the only way to discover talent and create jobs is through exploitation of teenagers?
Huh.
I mean, we've been discovering sports talent in this country for decades without depriving kids of education, making them virtual indentured servants to agents/handlers, skimming their earnings, forcing them to live in substandard conditions, leaving them with zero fallback when they (very likely) don't make it to the majors, etc.
We must be doing it all wrong here in the States.
http://deadspin.com/white-sox-rays-game-delayed-12-minutes-after-fan-hit-in-1771376242
(http://deadspin.com/white-sox-rays-game-delayed-12-minutes-after-fan-hit-in-1771376242)
Last night's game in St. Petersburg featured a lengthy delay as a 63-year-old woman was stretchered out of the stadium after being struck in the eye by a foul ball that found its way through a gap in the safety netting.
MLB recommended each ballpark substantially extend the netting this season, but the protection only works if there aren't any gaps—which there was last night:
Quote from: WI inferiority Complexes on April 16, 2016, 03:30:18 PM
http://deadspin.com/white-sox-rays-game-delayed-12-minutes-after-fan-hit-in-1771376242
(http://deadspin.com/white-sox-rays-game-delayed-12-minutes-after-fan-hit-in-1771376242)
Last night's game in St. Petersburg featured a lengthy delay as a 63-year-old woman was stretchered out of the stadium after being struck in the eye by a foul ball that found its way through a gap in the safety netting.
MLB recommended each ballpark substantially extend the netting this season, but the protection only works if there aren't any gaps—which there was last night:
Plexiglass......install lasers to shoot the balls.....there must be a way....