baseball nets foul pole to foul pole

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[tower912]

Already done in Japan.   Somehow, the game has managed to survive there. 

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Here's an idea. How about people pay attention to the damn game instead of mess around on their cell phones the entire time.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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?

[jsglow]

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

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Not a Cubs fan, ai na?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.   

[GGGG]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How about everyone has to check their cell phones in before entering the game so they pay attention.

[Benny B]

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).

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!

[copious1218]

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. 

[BrewCity83]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[brandx]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[copious1218]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

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.

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[real chili 83]

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.