U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2012, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,389,506 times
Reputation: 36095

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post

I'll start it for you.

"Pitching helmets are a bad idea because....."
. . . The pitchers, who would be the only beneficiaries, do not want it.

Filihok has unerthed eight instances of pitchers being hit on the head in the past three seasons, yet not one single pitcher has chosen to throw one single pitch from the safety of a helmet. Even those who have recovered from such a blow and continued to pitch (which is all of them). Why not? Why are the potential victims voting unanimously against this public outcy by the oh-so-wise and knowledgeable fans and media?

Maybe the pitchers do not know that they can use helmets if they want to, and somebody needs to tweet one of them and suggest it to him.

By the way, for what it's worth, in the '50's, before the industry produced the type of helmet we see today, the Pirates wore a rigid plastic insert under their regular baseball caps, which at least distributed the force over a larger area of their head, lessening the risk for severe injury at the point of impact. Well into the 1950s, football helmets were also rigid tight-fitting gear, that functioned similarly.

http://www.mearsonlineauctions.com/L...d0d520_lg.jpeg

Last edited by jtur88; 09-11-2012 at 05:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2012, 04:00 AM
 
Location: New England
186 posts, read 265,271 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Let us say that such a problem is overcome, science crafts a pitching helmet which is protective but does not restrict a pitcher's ability to see or concentrate. Don't you suspect that such a thing would be possible?

Would your objections remain?
I have to agree that a better helmet is probably something that can and should be invented for pitchers or those in the field (ie, the John Olerud's) who want to wear some protection out there. That being said, I still think it shouldn't be mandated, but should be up to each individual player to wear it or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2012, 07:41 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,238 posts, read 18,629,386 times
Reputation: 18777
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
. . . The pitchers, who would be the only beneficiaries, do not want it.
If we apply the popularity test in such cases we would not have mandatory seat belts for cars nor would motor cycle riders all wearing helmets.

Of course no one wants to be the pioneer in this sort of thing, the first "sissy" who has to have a pitching helmet. That person would be the object of jokes and ridicule, all of it centered on the guy's lack of masculinity, all of it typical of the sort of social dynamic you get when the group is composed of young, athletic males.

That stigma gets erased if the policy is mandatory helmets for all pitchers. No one gets singled out as the first "pansy."

So, no pitcher is likely to come out in favor of this, at least not in public, but absence of popularity is not the basis upon which we should be judging safety measures, is it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2012, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,846 posts, read 14,898,828 times
Reputation: 3512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
If we apply the popularity test in such cases we would not have mandatory seat belts for cars nor would motor cycle riders all wearing helmets.

Of course no one wants to be the pioneer in this sort of thing, the first "sissy" who has to have a pitching helmet. That person would be the object of jokes and ridicule, all of it centered on the guy's lack of masculinity, all of it typical of the sort of social dynamic you get when the group is composed of young, athletic males.

That stigma gets erased if the policy is mandatory helmets for all pitchers. No one gets singled out as the first "pansy."

So, no pitcher is likely to come out in favor of this, at least not in public, but absence of popularity is not the basis upon which we should be judging safety measures, is it?
So now who's the one using adjectives like "sissy" and "pansy" in this conversation? When I stated that I thought it wasn't a good idea, I was told by you that I had some hidden feelings that helmet use wouldn't be "macho" despite never having used that word or feeling that way. You're the only one using those words, so I have to wonder if you're the one who feels that way.

I will say it again...if the union felt that this was necessary, they could go to MLB and ask to have helmets mandated, then no one would be the first "sissy" or "pansy" as you put it.

Also...to compare this with seat belts or motorcycle helmets is ridiculous. Hundreds of thousands of people every year are injured or killed in car or motorcycle crashes, and many could have had a better outcome if they used a seat belt or helmet. I can probably give you 8 examples a day in just my state of crashes that could have had a better outcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2012, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,238 posts, read 18,629,386 times
Reputation: 18777
neil
Quote:
So now who's the one using adjectives like "sissy" and "pansy" in this conversation? When I stated that I thought it wasn't a good idea, I was told by you that I had some hidden feelings that helmet use wouldn't be "macho" despite never having used that word or feeling that way. You're the only one using those words, so I have to wonder if you're the one who feels that way.
I employed those words to characterize what would be the perception on the part of the ballplayers, I actually have zero personal interest in things macho/not macho.

Quote:
I will say it again...if the union felt that this was necessary, they could go to MLB and ask to have helmets mandated, then no one would be the first "sissy" or "pansy" as you put it.
The Union is the players, it exists to serve them, not to discipline or them or act against their caprice because "it knows better." The MLBPA is not going to force any such measures on the players any more than the United Auto Workers union would make an effort to get their people to eat better during lunch breaks.

Quote:
Also...to compare this with seat belts or motorcycle helmets is ridiculous. Hundreds of thousands of people every year are injured or killed in car or motorcycle crashes, and many could have had a better outcome if they used a seat belt or helmet. I can probably give you 8 examples a day in just my state of crashes that could have had a better outcome.
The idea that people will/will not voluntarily do what is best for them was the relevant concept in play, not the degree or frequency of the risk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2012, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,846 posts, read 14,898,828 times
Reputation: 3512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
The Union is the players, it exists to serve them, not to discipline or them or act against their caprice because "it knows better." The MLBPA is not going to force any such measures on the players any more than the United Auto Workers union would make an effort to get their people to eat better during lunch breaks.
Sorry, but I'm just not comprehending your point. Perhaps you can help me understand.

On the one hand, you are against voluntary use of helmets because then players will supposedly call each other names and accuse each other of watching Oprah. On the other hand, you are against the players through their union asking MLB to change the rules to require helmets if they feel their safety is at risk?

So it seems that the only thing you favor is a heavy handed MLB making a unilateral decision to force all pitchers to wear helmets? In your view, then no one gets their manhood questioned, the players get no say, and the union doesn't have to do its job?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2012, 10:31 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,238 posts, read 18,629,386 times
Reputation: 18777
neil

Quote:
Sorry, but I'm just not comprehending your point. Perhaps you can help me understand.

On the one hand, you are against voluntary use of helmets because then players will supposedly call each other names and accuse each other of watching Oprah.

That neither was nor is my position. I am not against voluntary use of helmets, I was speculating on the difficulties of such a program working well.

Quote:
On the other hand, you are against the players through their union asking MLB to change the rules to require helmets if they feel their safety is at risk?
You were certainly right about not comprehending. I did not write that I was against the above, I wrote that it was outside the realm of possibility. The Union is controlled by the votes of the payers, it isn't some entity which exists apart from them. Asking the Union is the same thing as asking the players. There is no power of central coercion to perform what is being suggested.
Quote:
So it seems that the only thing you favor is a heavy handed MLB making a unilateral decision to force all pitchers to wear helmets? In your view, then no one gets their manhood questioned, the players get no say, and the union doesn't have to do its job?
Not so. I'd be happy if they do it voluntarily, I just don't think that is going to happen. That leaves the next course of action, a policy enacted by MLB, which you characterize as "heavy handed" but I do not. It would just be another MLB policy, no different than any other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2012, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,389,506 times
Reputation: 36095
The evolution of the batting helmet:
1. A few players who had been injured voluntarily devised a helmet for their personal use between 1908 and 1937.
2. Batting helmets of varying styles were tried out in batting practice, spring training, and a few minor leagues in the 40s.
3. The Pittsburgh Pirates mandated the use of the helmet for all team players while at bat in 1953.
4. MLB adopts the use of modern style helmet in 1960
5. The batting helmet is made mandatory in 1970, but players already active in MLB were grandfathered in and not required to use it.

Interesting that it took 71 years to mandate the batting helmet, from Roger Bresnahan's first use of it in 1908, to Bob Montgomery finally retiring his soft batting cap in 1979. Also interesting, the second player to wear the modern style Little League batting helmet in MLB (1960) was Jim Piersall, who was widely regarded to be certifiably insane. (Jim Lemon was the first, a month earlier.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_helmet
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Charlotte. Or Detroit.
1,455 posts, read 3,656,300 times
Reputation: 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
If we apply the popularity test in such cases we would not have mandatory seat belts for cars nor would motor cycle riders all wearing helmets.

Of course no one wants to be the pioneer in this sort of thing, the first "sissy" who has to have a pitching helmet. That person would be the object of jokes and ridicule, all of it centered on the guy's lack of masculinity, all of it typical of the sort of social dynamic you get when the group is composed of young, athletic males.

That stigma gets erased if the policy is mandatory helmets for all pitchers. No one gets singled out as the first "pansy."

So, no pitcher is likely to come out in favor of this, at least not in public, but absence of popularity is not the basis upon which we should be judging safety measures, is it?
Okay, I'll bite. I not only believe that pitching helmets shouldn't be mandatory, I don't believe that seat belts should be mandatory either. If grown adults want to take a risk knowing the possible consequences, I say have at it. (I'm okay with mandating these things for children - they shouldn't be punished for having stupid parents. Genetics will probably punish them enough.)

Oh, and FYI -- not all motorcycle riders have to wear helmets. According to thisplace, only 21 states that require all riders to wear helmets. Several more have laws that apply to those 17 and under or 20 and under. And there are even a few with no law at all (Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,238 posts, read 18,629,386 times
Reputation: 18777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timm View Post
Okay, I'll bite. I not only believe that pitching helmets shouldn't be mandatory, I don't believe that seat belts should be mandatory either. If grown adults want to take a risk knowing the possible consequences, I say have at it. (I'm okay with mandating these things for children - they shouldn't be punished for having stupid parents. Genetics will probably punish them enough.)

.
So, you are okay with the idea of those children being made into orphans because their free spirited parents decided against auto safety measures?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top