You had a point?


Whatever.

Another coach who's nearly been hit in the head:

"I think it's good," [Marlins coach Bo] Porter said of the rule after making his helmet-wearing debut during Florida's 7-2 win at Roger Dean Stadium.

"You have to pay attention. Of all the things you dread on a baseball field, it would be getting hit with a ball at that close range coming at the speed a lot of balls come off the bat. I had a few close calls last year.'' -Palm Beach Post

Has there been any call for people in the dugout to start wearing helmets? The dugout isn't that much farther from the batter's box than the coach's box is, and you've got people in a seated position, making it harder for them to move quickly, and lots of them aren't paying attention to the game at all.

"Whatever."

No, really. You honestly think that a system which discriminates on the base of age, and involves someone at MLB headquarters making uninformed, arbitrary decisions about which coaches are and are not decrepit would be better than just making everyone wear the helmet?

"Has there been any call for people in the dugout to start wearing helmets?"

Not that I've heard, though I do think there's room for optimization in dugout design. You could put up a thin mesh in front of the open part, like they have in the luxury boxes at some stadia, or at least build the dugout itself out of something less ricochet-prone than poured concrete (which would be good for fielders who chase popups over to the dugout, too). Or maybe extend the low part of the batting cage's netting, to shield the dugout from real cannon shots. Or move the dugouts further up the line, to give occupants more reaction time.

Still, small steps. Never let the perfect be an enemy of the good.

Just for the record, another coach who's been hit by line drives:

[Reds coach Mark] Berry said he has coached third base at different times for 11 years, "And I've only been hit twice, both times on the leg. Rich Aurilia hit me in the left leg in Chicago two years ago and I was on crutches for a week. The other time was 1993, the other leg, in Class A Winston-Salem when I was smoked by Eric Owens." -Dayton Daily News

He doesn't support the rule, which is his choice, but to me it seems pretty lucky that he didn't happen to catch another one while he was out there on crutches. It's hard to get out of the way when your options for evasive action are limited to falling down.

No, really. You honestly think that a system which discriminates on the base of age, and involves someone at MLB headquarters making uninformed, arbitrary decisions about which coaches are and are not decrepit would be better than just making everyone wear the helmet

As a part of the start of spring training, you could have any coach that does not want to wear a helmet petition for an exemption.

An MLB official could then take a couple of pitching machines, aim them at the coach and fire about 150 balls at them, going about 180 MPH. If they successfully dodge all the balls, then they can go to stage two, where the representative hits them upside the head with a bat.

If they remain standing then they have proved that they can dodge a wrench, dodge a ball, and are man enough to take a shot in the head. MLB can then grant an exemption.

I second #107'suggestion

Actually, they commissioned a study which found that the majority of serious injuries were happening after the 12th round, and that's why they changed it.

Who were they, though? Benny "Kid" Paret went down in the 12th. Davey Moore, of Bob Dylan song fame, met his fate in the 10th. Willie Classen died in the 10th. I can list another dozen fairly famous ones that happened in the 12th or earler. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any besides Kim that happened in the "championship rounds".

I'm not clear about when the wrench comes into play.

Who were they, though?

Jose Sulaiman and the WBC.

Additionally, Neveda added an extra ring rope and changes were made to the pre-fight medical check up (which the fighters were not allowed to skip just because they wanted to man up)

He doesn't support the rule, which is his choice, but to me it seems pretty lucky that he didn't happen to catch another one while he was out there on crutches.

Let's hope no one is permitting base coaches to go on the field on crutches. That's a regulation even I could get behind.

And for the record, there is sometimes something between the batter's box and the coach's box: a baserunner.

Not really, geometrically.

So far, all you've come up with is a list of coaches who have gotten hit in the leg or elbow (during game conditions), and a coach who got hit in the head during BP, with a batting cage altering his perception of the ball. Forgive me if I've left out any other instances you've cited. None of them meet the criteria I'm arguing.

No, really. You honestly think that a system which discriminates on the base of age, and involves someone at MLB headquarters making uninformed, arbitrary decisions about which coaches are and are not decrepit would be better than just making everyone wear the helmet?

No, really, whatever. When did the leap to "age discrimination" come? I said "voluntary". Not "mandated".

He doesn't support the rule, which is his choice, but to me it seems pretty lucky that he didn't happen to catch another one while he was out there on crutches.

Crutches? Whatever.

Letting coaches wear gloves is a terrible solution. The likelihood of a coach with a glove on confusing the fielding team is much, much greater than the odds that the glove would ever become necessary protection for the coach. Not to mention that the integrity of the game is dinged (admittedly the tiniest bit) by giving coaches a license to touch balls in the air that might otherwise be avoided.

"Who were they, though?"

Boxing's not my strongest area, but I know one: Ernie Schaaf, who supposedly sustained brain damage during a decision loss to Max Baer, and then died after being knocked out in the 13th against Primo Carnera.

Baer actually beat a couple of other guys to death, too, but I think they all happened before the 12th round.

Who were they, though?

Jose Sulaiman and the WBC.

Oh yeah, absolutely. I meant who were the guys that died in the 13th round or later. Don't even get me started on Jose Sulaiman. :-)

"When did the leap to "age discrimination" come?"

A: "Don't make Dale Sveum wear one because Larry Bowa is too decrepit to react to a batted ball."

You also suggested that the coaches be allowed to determine for themselves whether they were "decrepit", but since that obviously wasn't a serious suggestion, I took it to be a joke.

"None of them meet the criteria I'm arguing."

The problem, as I've said, is that you've argued about six different sets of criteria. You've said that you didn't mean to do that, and I'm willing to believe you, but a lot of these supposedly irrelevant examples were cited in response to your most recent set of qualifications at the time.

Looking at the things I've posted in the aggregate, there are a bunch of coaches who talk about times they've been hit, though not in the head. There are a bunch of coaches who talk about times they were nearly hit in the head, but were barely able to dodge, with the near miss leaving them shaken but unharmed. There are a bunch of coaches who have already taken to wearing similar equipment on a voluntary basis. There's one coach who got hit in the head during a time when he was paying attention, because he misjudged the trajectory of a ball during BP.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that on a long enough time frame, it's eventually going to happen.

Bowa IS wearing the helmet today at the request of Joe Torre...

The problem, as I've said, is that you've argued about six different sets of criteria. You've said that you didn't mean to do that, and I'm willing to believe you, but a lot of these supposedly irrelevant examples were cited in response to your most recent set of qualifications at the time.

That's not what I said, or did, at all. I said my posts may have been incomplete. My reasoning was consistent:

Post 1 "never saw coach hit".
Post 2 "if they pay attention, they won't get hit."
Post 3 "they get hit during BP or in spring training during practices."
Post 4 responded to the ridiculous Little League example you gave.
Post 5 responded to coaches Cruz and Hill with "I don't agree with them."
Post 6 responded to coach Hoffman getting beaned during BP, with a cage semi-blocking his vision/perception.
Post 7 "coaches should decide for themselves."

I can't be responsible for what you read into my posts. And, you're the one who keeps coming up with examples that have nothing to do with a coach getting beaned during a game.

edit...I left out a few of my posts, ones that didn't address the issue directly, so don't shoot me over the numbering.

Oh yeah, absolutely. I meant who were the guys that died in the 13th round or later. Don't even get me started on Jose Sulaiman. :-)


You are correct that throughout history, most deaths occurred in the fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth, and twelfth rounds. Cite

I had heard that one of the WBC studies showed that their was a decrease in brain fluid after round 10. Others have postulated that dehydration and the need to make weight at some divisions is the bigger exacerbating cause to serious injury.

I don't know, but 12 rounds is usually enough to find enough for a winner. While there could definately be entertainment value to more rounds of Irish Mickie Ward v. Arturo Gatti, has there been a recent fight where the extra rounds would seem to be very outcome determinative (maybe De La Hoya Moseby).

Also, I would add, that after reviewing the thread and re-reading Vlad's comments, it appears that his general tone needs improvement. Almost every one of them has a gratuitous, condescending remark.

Sure, at one level it's a silly, paternalistic rule. But it's also just a rule about what type of hat he wears. Actually it's probably the 10th rule about what type of hat he wears and nobody raised a stink about the first 9. But now that it's a rule that maybe, on the slightest chance, might save someone's life without costing Bowa a damn thing, oh well that's when we get on our libertarian high horses.

I'm late to the party and I'm sure plenty of this has been addressed, but I'll side with the libertarians here (where can I buy a libertarian high horse?).

Out of millions of baseball games, the unfortunate death of Coolbaugh is the first I know of where a coach died from being hit by a baseball. I would think the odds of a coach getting killed in this manner is much lower than getting shot to death in a city like DC. Isn't this reasoning enough to require everyone in such a city to own and wear a bulletproof vest?

If I were coaching I'd wear a helmet, but I have no right to decide what risk is tolerable for Larry Bowa, and neither does anyone else.

About nobody making a stink about other rule changes, I suspect you are wrong there. I would be surprised if no baseball player balked at having to wear a helmet while batting. The one rule I do remember is the 2 ear flap rule. This one was grandfathered in, I distinctly remember Tim Raines being the last player to wear a helmet with just one flap, many years after all newer players were required to have the current style helmet.

"That's not what I said, or did, at all."

Joe, it's right there in the thread. If you didn't mean to write what you wrote, that's fine, but you wrote what you wrote. Just taking a few of these:

"Post 4 responded to the ridiculous Little League example you gave."

You said, and I quote: "How many coaches have you seen get hit in the head with a batted ball? I'll bet the answer is "zero"." Not "How many pro coaches," or "How many MLB coaches". "How many coaches," period. If you meant "How many MLB coaches", you should've SAID THAT.

You subsequently clarified by limiting it to professional coaches. Fine.

"Post 5 responded to coaches Cruz and Hill with 'I don't agree with them.'"

With what were you not agreeing? You think that Cruz and Hill were lying when they claimed that they had come close to getting hit in the past, and that they were concerned about being hit in the future? Who would know better on what they feel about the subject? Them, or you?

You subsequently clarified by limiting it to professional coaches who got hit in the head. Fine.

"Post 6 responded to coach Hoffman getting beaned during BP, with a cage semi-blocking his vision/perception."

You extrapolated that Hoffman didn't see the ball because the cage was in the way. This is, I might add, in direct conflict with what Hoffman says in the article, which is as follows: "The cage was pushed back too far behind the plate, and I didn't expect the ball to get around the cage." I.e. the ball got past the far edge of the batting cage BEHIND THE BATTER, which Hoffman didn't expect. Here's a visual aid:
<pre>
........----.........
....../.......\........
...../...=B...\.<--...
....-...........-......
...-..............-.....
..-.................-....
.-......====......-*..
-.........^P.........-.H
He had a clear view of the ball the whole time, but misread the trajectory, and got hit in the head when the ball didn't hit the edge of the cage (the point indicated by the arrow). If the cage had, in fact, been in his line of sight on the ball, that would've been a damn stupid place for him to stand, in that he was there to "read balls off the bat", and could've picked any spot on the field that he pleased because it wasn't a live game situation.

"Post 7 "coaches should decide for themselves."

If you seriously intended for coaches to decide for themselves, that was completely at odds with the example you provided, which hinged on Larry Bowa recognizing that he's old and weak and mortal and acting accordingly. Which, in turn, will happen when the sun collapses, plunging the planet into eternal darkness. Maybe. If you count actually dying as a recognition of his own mortality.

"I can't be responsible for what you read into my posts."

If you don't care enough about people understanding your thoughts to make sure that the post says what you want it to say, why should I care enough to read it? I guess I shoudn't.

I'm going to take my own advice now.

You said, and I quote: "How many coaches have you seen get hit in the head with a batted ball? I'll bet the answer is "zero"." Not "How many pro coaches," or "How many MLB coaches". "How many coaches," period. If you meant "How many MLB coaches", you should've SAID THAT.

Classic. The thread deals with a rule MLB institutes for MLB coaches, but you use an incident that occurred during a Little League game to bolster your argument. That's OK? Only someone angling for a fight would then say what I've quoted you saying.

I only used Bowa as an example of someone who may be better off wearing a helmet as opposed to Sveum, but I still maintain that it should be voluntary.

Whatever.

edit...whether the batting cage was pushed back isn't relevant. hat is relevant is that the batting cage altered Hoffman's perception of the ball's flight.

Major league baseball mandates all sorts of equipment rules for players and coaches. Why the outcry over one mandate but not the hundreds of others?

"I have no right to decide what risk is tolerable for Larry Bowa, and neither does anyone else."

Except for his boss, i.e. MLB. Who is, in fact, the one who told him to wear the damn hat.

If your boss tells you to do something, you do it, or else you quit/get fired and then get a different job. Not being able to do whatever the hell you want all the time is, in fact, the very essence of having a job in the first place: You're exchanging control over your actions, within reasonable and mutually agreeable limits, for financial renumeration.

If Larry Bowa doesn't want to wear a helmet on his own time, he doesn't have to wear one. If he doesn't want to wear a bulletproof vest in DC, he doesn't have to do that either (unless, of course, he takes a job where one of the requirements is that all employees wear bulletproof vests).

Outcry? I'm only saying I think it isn't necessary. I don't address the other equipment rules because none of them are new, and maybe I agree with them?

"The thread deals with a rule MLB institutes for MLB coaches, but you use an incident that occurred during a Little League game to bolster your argument. That's OK? Only someone angling for a fight would then say what I've quoted you saying."

Hmm, let me check my notes... yeah, it doesn't appear that the site's TOS says anywhere that we aren't allowed to talk about non-MLB baseball, or that we aren't allowed to deliver personal anecdotes. How about that? Learn something new every day, I guess.

"My little league coach got hit in the knee by a line drive.": Them's fightin' words!

"edit...whether the batting cage was pushed back isn't relevant. hat is relevant is that the batting cage altered Hoffman's perception of the ball's flight."

The batting cage didn't alter his perception of the ball's flight. He saw the ball just fine (indeed, seeing the ball just fine was the very reason that he was in the location where he was). He just made an incorrect assessment that it was on a trajectory where it'd hit the edge of the cage. It wasn't, and by the time he realized that, it was too late for him to get out of the way.

Hoffman said he thought the ball was going to hit the batting cage. If the batting cage wasn't on the field, he wouldn't have thought that. He would have thought "Here comes the ball with nothing to stop it from hitting me except for my superior reflexes!!"

Continue being a condescending jackass. It's very entertaining.

Also, I have deep reservations about Hoffman's version of that story. It seems nigh-on impossible for me to believe that a major league coach could be watching the flight of the ball off the bat and get struck in the ear by it, without moving or flinching or otherwise instinctively getting out of the way. I suspect he had been watching earlier balls come off the bat, but I would bet he never saw the one that got him.

And how many MLB games are played without a cage on the field, Joe? I've been to a bunch, and I'm pretty sure that I've always seen some type of curved barrier behind the catcher, to keep the little old lady in the first row of the expensive seats from catching a foul tip in the teeth.

He just made an incorrect assessment that it was on a trajectory where it'd hit the edge of the cage.

This doesn't make sense. The cage isn't that wide - it will hit the cage faster than anyone can begin to think whether or not it will hit the cage.

Hoffman is exaggerating for effect.

Wearing the helmet serves little purpose. But, at least we can now say "But who'll think of the coaches!?"

And how many MLB games are played without a cage on the field, Joe? I've been to a bunch, and I'm pretty sure that I've always seen some type of curved barrier behind the catcher, to keep the little old lady in the first row of the expensive seats from catching a foul tip in the teeth.

Duh, that's not a batting cage.

"The cage isn't that wide - it will hit the cage faster than anyone can begin to think whether or not it will hit the cage."

I'm assuming that the hitter looked like he was way out in front (if he was a righty) or way behind (if he was a lefty) the ball.

"Duh, that's not a batting cage."

Functionally, it's the same thing. Unless you think that having a small, narrow backstop made of metal instead of a large one made of rope was a big factor in Hoffman's error.

Functionally, it's the same thing. Unless you think that having a small, narrow backstop made of metal instead of a large one made of rope was a big factor in Hoffman's error.

Huh? the first is within 10 feet of the hitter. the second is 40 feet behind him.

As for whether the hitter was out in front, he didn't watch the *ball* and think it was going to hit the cage - no one can see that quickly. It's not believable as told.

"As for whether the hitter was out in front, he didn't watch the *ball* and think it was going to hit the cage - no one can see that quickly. It's not believable as told."

So take it up with Hoffman, then. I just linked to what he said.

If, as you're claiming, Hoffman never even had a chance to pick up the ball once it was hit, that actually reinforces the argument in favor of helmets.