THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Warning, rant:

I understand what you’re saying and I completely disagree.  I’m so sick of the “we have to protect the children at any and all costs” attitude many people have.  When you go to a ball game, it is your responsibility to pay attention to the game and protect yourself.  If you have a child with you, they are your responsibility.  I can’t really blame you for your opinion, as what I call “the pussification of America” has been ongoing for quite some time.  Kids can’t play dodgeball because someone might get picked on.  Kids aren’t allowed to play outside because they might get abducted.  Kids aren’t allowed to compete at anything because someone might lose.  I believe George Carlin said that “kids aren’t allowed to jack off nowadays without wearing a helmet.” Why don’t we give all the children helmets and lock them in a padded room by themselves?  That way no one can get hurt or have their feelings hurt. 

I don’t mean to go off the deep end here, but your arguement is but a symptom of the entire “save the children” BS.  The chances of someone being seriously injured or killed going to a baseball game are miniscule.  You can’t eliminate all risk in life. 

End of rant....for now.

I was hoping that by including “a child” as opposed to “a person” in the title would not have gotten the “won’t someone think of the children” post too early.

-1 Tango-as-editor.

My point remains regardless if it’s a kid, adult drinking two beers and a hotdog, or an elderly person.

The point is about being pro-active, balancing risk-reward, and you lose so little with the screen, as proven by NHL, but you gain so much.

And that holds regardless of age of fan.

Another way to consider it is the following:

Will Japan and the NHL REMOVE the screen?  Do the fans there now want the screen removed?  Or, do they think it’s simply a wise thing to have?

It’s incredible to me the way inertia or status-quo seems to be the prevalent right-way to do things.  That the decision made by someone else, a long time ago, is the de riguer way of life.

You have to weigh the risks against the benefits.  You, Tango, feel the benefits of the unobstructed view are small.  You are entitled to your personal trade-off.

I, on the other hand, think the benefits are larger, larger for sure than the risks.

We should all take care to not insist that our personal taste for risk, and our personal benefits from taking that risk, be foisted on others.

---

BTW, it seems to me that the risk of spectating at a hockey game, even without the netting, is small.  I’d bet more people die getting to and from the game than the one person who died of a puck injury.

Phil: I’m not saying I’m right.  But I am saying that people automatically default to inertia status-quo.

I’m sympathetic to Phil’s argument.  Tango seems to be saying that one death—no matter how long before it occurs—would prove the fans wrong. That implies our standard should be zero risk, which isn’t reasonable.  On the other hand, plenty of fans choose to sit behind home plate (and pay a lot of money to do so), so we don’t need to rely on the NHL to know that fans can enjoy the game and be safe.  It seems to me the answer is to employ a less obstructive fine mesh barrier, which has to be technologically possible (and maybe use this behind home plate too) and extend it at least to the far end of each dugout.  The risks in seats beyond that point have to be very low.  And if more broken bats are making it to the stands, that may be fixable by rules about legal bats.

Tango: I really don’t mean this to be a cheap shot, but how is your view on this issue any less “summary opinion without evidence” than the opposing view?  Nobody here has any evidence of what the real risks are.  And fan satisfaction with the status quo is at least some evidence of their preferences, at least as much as the evidence of fan preferences in Japan and hockey arenas.

Summary opinion with no evidence?

Action in an NHL game killed a fan.  Mesh went up.  No fans complain.

I’m saying no MLB fan is going to complain if the mesh goes up, that they will get used to it.  I say that because the pool of humans that a baseball fan is drawn from is virtually the same that a hockey fan is drawn from.

***

“That implies our standard should be zero risk”: if you can make the reward that you have no deaths, and the risk to that is that you put up a mesh that no fan complains about, then what’s the issue?

No fans *formally* complain, because there’s no point.

However, consider me complaining!  I’ve sat behind the mesh and didn’t like it.  I’d rather have taken the risk of being seriously injured by a puck, since, to my perception, that risk is very low.

Tango, you don’t think it’s more enjoyable to watch a game without the mesh in the way?  Of course it is.  It might be worth the safety improvement, or it might not, but are you really trying to say there’s ZERO negative impact on enjoying the game?

I would complain, Patrick would complain, Phil would complain, Guy might complain.  MLB teams have an economic incentive to know whether fans would complain.  Of course, we all very well could be underestimating the risk.

What is your evidence that “no fan will complain?” According to the article, teams think fans will complain—perhaps they’ve even researched this.  I agree fans will adjust and live with it once it happens, but that doesn’t mean no one will be disappointed.  I live with the DH and go to AL games—but that doesn’t mean the DH has zero impact on the pleasure I derive from baseball.

And look, I could just as easily say it’s Tango who is ignoring evidence here.  We have 1 death in the entire history of MLB—haven’t we established beyond all reasonable doubt that the risks are very low?  I think the burden is on those who feel the risk has increased in recent years—because of thinner bats, distractions like cell phones, whatever—to argue that point.  That’s an argument I’m inclined to agree with, but you have to make the case.  The most obvious relevant evidence says there is no problem here.

Think about it this way…

If someone dies at a major league game, will they start requiring nets? (I think it is almost 100% sure that they will.)

Is it inevitable that someone will die from a batted ball or thrown bat? (Again, it may be many years, but it WILL happen given enough time/opportunity.)

So, why wait?

Why would there have to be a death for there to be a problem. How about someone losing an eye? Or seriously injured / concussed from a foul ball. Or broken fingers trying prevent being hit by the ball and not having much reaction time? I personally think the nets should be extended, especially to the end of the dugouts and wouldn’t have any problem with that. We now insist (or don’t question) that cars and many other consumer products increase their safety standards over the years, why not baseball?

From a business standpoint, is there incentive to put up the netting?  I’m kind of with Guy, that I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some cost-benefit analyses done on it (loss of revenue due to one incident versus loss from complaints on visibility).

It kind of reminds me of the issue of visors/cages, though I’d wager a bet that the cost of injury would easily outweigh the cost of, well, whatever the cost is of protecting the players (I don’t buy the “vision” thing, since I’m pretty sure goaltenders got over it).

"there’s ZERO negative impact on enjoying the game?”

Right, there’s zero.  Have you sat in the catcher’s dugout at Olympic Stadium?  It’s at field-level, and it’s right behind home plate, and the on-deck circle is right there, and Vlad was close enough that he would pose for us and smile.  The barrier between them and us was a steel fence (a mesh basically).

I never once thought that it would be great that there was no barrier at all, I never thought that the reason it was there was to protect me.  I just accepted that it’s there, that I can see the players so close, and I can watch the game.

If it REALLY bothers someone, then you can sit 30 rows up behind first base.

I wouldn’t have a problem with increasing the length of the netting, but I do think running the entire length of the foul lines is a bit excessive.  So I guess the question is how far up the lines should they go.  I’d say at least to the end of the dugouts, and maybe a little further beyond that.  And I say this as someone who prefers to sit in the outfield bleachers, so there isn’t any cost to me to have additional screening.

[1] We need to stop acting like the whole time we’re sitting there, at the game, all attentive and ready to snag a liner into the 6th row.

[2] We also need to stop acting like the 10 people in front of us, 10 behind us, and 8 to the side aren;t all going to be either diving out of the way, swinging their arms, acting as deflectors, or mosh pitting us as the ball arrives.

Really, I’m more concerned with the 265 pound 40-yo guy sitting behind us that’s going to come over the seats and on top of my young kids when a foul ball comes in our area.

I think a lot of folks talk tough when they haven’t experienced a situation. Line drives come into the crowd as screamers sometimes ... sometimes even in the second deck. There are some balls hit over the dugouts that ML infielders might find “hot to handle”, yet the crowd is going to defend itself (or not get someone else hurt) from a seated position.

I’ll also say this, maybe even my own comments are pure stupidity. It’s one thing to be able to catch a lollipop foul ball, it’s another situation to catch a screamer, from a seated position, when the people in front of you are diving out of the way, jumping up, waving their arms, etc. Anyone claiming to be able to defend themselves or their kids (or not deflect it and get anyone else hurt), may be the most full of shit person in the discussion ... and that may describe me on occassion, because I’m pretty proud of my athleticism and hand-eye coordination.

I am not, at all, for a “nerf society”. But, we also know that it is quite common for foul balls, (and even bats)sometimes at quite a velocity to come into the area. We also know that fans don;t stay in their own seats and will be all over the place. The issue with that regard is they reduce your ability to defend yourself. I’m less concerned with going home with a foul ball. We saw this the other night, when Frenchy was throwing a ball to a lady, and dumbass old man, jumped in front of her, deflected the ball, and it struck her in the mouth.

If we had screens, there’d be an outrage for 5 minutes, then we’d all get back to watching the game.

This is not a case of air bags leading to more inattentive drivers, but a situation where risk could essentially be eliminated with minimal intrusion to the viewing experience. Let’s not make it sound like like it;’s watching a game through a chain length fence. I’ve sat behind the plate at the K a few times, and the net didn’t bother me a bit. I was just amazed I was so close I could “see Mattingly’s cleft chin!”

I often get to watch games from “the booth” in prep and college ball, and screen/fence never really seems to distract.

I, personally, don’t see the big deal.

but I do think running the entire length of the foul lines is a bit excessive

In local arenas, the netting wraps around quite a bit, but that’s because you have lots of unattended kids everywhere.  In the NHL, I don’t even remember where they extend to… I think just past the goal-line.

That seems appropriate for NHL games.  Maybe for MLB, it could extend to the end of the dugouts, up to first/third base, or maybe even to where the grass starts in the outfield.  After that though, I think batted balls aren’t as dangerous as there’s more reaction time for the fans.

It’s like we talked about in another thread.  Every life in every context has a price, both monetarily and aesthetically. And the chance of a person getting injured or killed per game factors into the equation.  Everyone can have an “opinion” on this, but so what…

In the NHL, they extend to the goal line only.  I have sat in the lower bowl at Sharks games (HP Pavilion), in seats just in front of the goal line, and I actually do feel a bit unsafe, but I think that’s because I know the sport far less than baseball, and I won’t feel confident that I could react instinctually if their was a ricochet on a shot on goal that entered the crowd.

I don’t think hockey is a perfect comparison, because a puck could ricochet off an opponents’ stick or the post and go in a very unpredictable direction. In baseball, you have a much better idea of the limited window of time when you are (briefly) vulnerable - right at contact. 

As for baseball nets...how about a compromise?

I could get on board with baseball netting all through the foul territory up to the base lines...if it came in conjunction with the complete elimination of foul territory in all those parks.  I’m suggesting 10 feet of foul territory between the baselines and the first row of fans, all the way around.  Just enough room for base coaches, and a wide turn while rounding first or third.  But no more than that. 

Doing that would make the view of the game better for a significant percentage of fans in the park, helping to offset the nuisance of the netting.

One last thought on this issue:  Most of us on this website are over the age of 25.  The next 30 years of baseball-going fans will all be at games while playing on their smartphones, or playing their portable video game players when the action isn’t stimulating enough to them, or even watching a DVD on their iPad while at the game, etc.  Those people will need to be protected more than we did when we all attended games as kids.

Jacob: excellent point about the portable technology.

And excellent point about decreasing the foul area, too.  If fans are THAT close to the foul-line, they would definitely want the netting, especially in return they get that action too.

Great, you solved the problem!

Most people default to one of two heuristics when faced with a potential problem.

A)"If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” It’s less common that people do a serious cost-benefit analysis and then later find the costs they analyzed are out of control.  Instead, it’s the unintended consequences that worry these people.

B)"Something must be done.  This is something.  Therefore, this must be done.” Why not be proactive?  If there is a problem with the solution, why can’t you tweak the solution later?

Camp A thinks camp B is reckless and disrespectful.  Camp B thinks camp A is reckless and lazy.  If, for a certain class of problem, you default to one of these camps, it is going to be really hard to sympathize with the other.

I’m a photographer, so I find sitting behind the net annoying; however, I have seen too many people get injured by batted balls at (minor-league) baseball games to know that protection is needed. Too many of the fans at minor-league games are there for the social aspects and either don’t pay attention or do not know they need to pay attention to the batting action. I saw a very small baby get hit in the head with a foul line drive (about row 4 at the top of the dugout). A couple of minor-league parks I been to in recent years had netting that extended well past the corner bases. My guess at the time was it had to do with insurance costs.

I’ve noticed that more and more local municipal hockey rinks have netting all the way around now, not just behind the goals.  Never heard anyone complain about it.  You get used to it.  I figure this will probably come to NHL arenas soon enough.

I’d guess it will take longer to come to baseball games if only for logistical reasons.  It’s got to be more expensive to build the support structures for netting in baseball, especially at your local high school field.  So I suspect there will be greater resistance to the idea even following a serious injury or death of a spectator.

C’mon...we can land men on the moon but we can’t construct invisible force fields along the foul lines at ballparks?

I actually find it unpleasant to sit behind the dugout at a baseball game *without* the mesh. 

The last time I was sitting there with my wife and daughter, mostly wanting to just drink my beer and relax, I felt like I had to vigilantly pay attention to every pitch.  And, like CircleChange said, while I played 3rd base in high school and would claim to have (or at least at one point had) quick reactions, I’m not at all confident in my ability to catch a screaming line drive even when I’m paying attention.  I’d enjoy the game more with the mesh.

We just got back from a weekend 10U travel tournament (4 games in 2 days, would have been more, but we lost the 1st game today), and 2 things have changed drastically when I played.

(1) Batting helmets require masks. To me this is a positive far outweighs the negative, even though I survived from t-ball through college without wearing one. Same deal with the heartguard.  I see that high scoop softball 3B’s wear a face shield these days due to how close they have to play to defend bunts. Also probably a good idea.

(2) Pitch counts. In our city league, throwing 75 pitches requires 4 calendar days rest. In our travel tournament I saw a 10yo throw 134 pitches yesterday, and another 100 today .. without violating the “10 IP for the tourney” limit. For this age, 20 pitches per inning is common. With the empasis on batters walking, and advancing on SB’s and WP’s, there seems to be a 2-2 count on everyone.

Some of the protective measures do seem like a good idea, while there seems to be a complete lack in other areas.

The thing that sticks out to me is that if we grow up with something, and are comfortable with it, it’s no big deal. But if it’s a change, we’re resistant.

Had there always been netting at stadiums we would likely not even notice. My son has never batted without a mask, and it’s a non-issue for him. There have been times when guys have been beaned in the mask and have just trotted down to first laughing. Considering the possible damage if they didn’t have a mask it seems like a no-brainer.

When we look back at baseball when they did not wear helmets, it seems like a really dumb thing, without looking at modern helmet wearers as being sissies.