Farmer update and safety measures

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, cheeseheadgophfan said:

Every kid growing up now (at least where my kids play) uses the extended flap and I've never heard them complaining (can't tell you if that's because they don't know any different).  As for me, I had been playing fairly high-level ball for 10-15 years when I first tried it.  I think it was probably the change that bothered me most....hard to tell.  I probably blamed it for my trouble with a low slider....LOL.

The players coming up have been used to using it (at least as an option) while growing up.  But, like I said, I think it will be more and more customary (if not mandatory) in the near future.  

I've seen plenty of 90 mph fastballs in my day.....scary enough.  Add in 10 mph and it boggles my mind.  You have literally no chance to get out of the way if you're actually committed to staying on the ball.  

Same, I don't have kids that play but I umpire 8-10 games a week and everyone wears them.  Not mandated yet, but two ear flaps are.  I see 2-3 helmet beanings a week just for the kids not having control.  Fortunately no damage in my games, mostly the kids laugh at the helmet doink noises.  Hopefully they aren't getting complacent with the protection.  Strike zone is expanded on the outside for the younger kids but NEVER, EVER on the inside lest we have a bean ball bonanza.  Point is, the flaps will be everywhere in MLB soon enough.  I can still remember hockey without helmets, as insane as that sounds.

The flap and protection in general isn't a magic bullet, its to hopefully avoid serious injury.  I'm continuously amazed how may times I get hit outside of the gear behind the plate but its almost always glancing blows.  When I get squared up on the mask or chest or elsewhere-ahhm I still feel it but little damage.  A couple weeks ago I had a 12 yo get hit around the chin flap sliding into second , it squared him up on the collerbone and jaw and made a sickening sound.  I was sick to my stomach but somehow he was up in about 30 seconds, ready to go again.  There is so much contact with the ball that we never really see unless you are in close.

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

Regarding the helmets and protection, there is still a lot of ego and machismo rampant in things like this.  This is why most pitchers will not wear the padded hat on the mound.  Technology being what it is today, they could easily design a faceguard that would be unobtrusive.

I am not a big fan of the body armor.  I still remember Barry Bonds standing at the plate in a suit of armor with zero fear of getting plunked.

Baseball could legislate certain things that would help:  Automatic ejections/suspensions for HBPs above the shoulder, regardless of intent.  They could also treat HBPs like Technical fouls in basketball.  Fines for each one, suspensions after a certain number on the year.  Changing the batters box to force batters off the plate.  Requiring safer helmets.  But they won't.  Too many baseball purists saying it will ruin the game and too many players unwilling to change.

I'm not a fan of moving the box back, and think guys should wear hand, elbow, and shin guards because it's terrible when they miss time over a HBP or foul ball off the shin. But I think a HBP on padding shouldn't count as anything more than a ball (or strike if it's in the strike zone and the guy leans in). Throwing a pad on your elbow and just leaning into every inside pitch is trash. If it hits your pad it shouldn't get you a base. That'd be my rule change.

[Jocko87]

15 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not a fan of moving the box back, and think guys should wear hand, elbow, and shin guards because it's terrible when they miss time over a HBP or foul ball off the shin. But I think a HBP on padding shouldn't count as anything more than a ball (or strike if it's in the strike zone and the guy leans in). Throwing a pad on your elbow and just leaning into every inside pitch is trash. If it hits your pad it shouldn't get you a base. That'd be my rule change.

They can do this with umpire enforcement of the current rule.  Current enforcement is that basically any movement is interpreted as trying to get out of the way and at 95 plus that mostly makes sense.  They are allowed within the current rules to interpret turning to let it hit in a softer place as not trying to get out of the way.  That wouldn't make sense either as most of the time they can't get out of the way and have to protect.  Its not "The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball" as the rule book states but its usually the best they can do in the mirco-second they have.  You will occasionally see this called on a slow loopy breaking ball. 

There are also many instances where sicking the arm out to get hit that need to be called though.  It doesn't require a rule change, just enforcement emphasis from the commish. 

[Jocko87]

38 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not a fan of moving the box back, and think guys should wear hand, elbow, and shin guards because it's terrible when they miss time over a HBP or foul ball off the shin. But I think a HBP on padding shouldn't count as anything more than a ball (or strike if it's in the strike zone and the guy leans in). Throwing a pad on your elbow and just leaning into every inside pitch is trash. If it hits your pad it shouldn't get you a base. That'd be my rule change.

It's also a strike and no HBP if the pitch is in the strike zone.  Nobody leans that far though.

[glunn]

I watched the replay of last night's game and saw that 6 of the Twins 9 original hitters were wearing the jaw guards. Notably. Buxton was not.

[chpettit19]

21 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

They can do this with umpire enforcement of the current rule.  Current enforcement is that basically any movement is interpreted as trying to get out of the way and at 95 plus that mostly makes sense.  They are allowed within the current rules to interpret turning to let it hit in a softer place as not trying to get out of the way.  That wouldn't make sense either as most of the time they can't get out of the way and have to protect.  Its not "The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball" as the rule book states but its usually the best they can do in the mirco-second they have.  You will occasionally see this called on a slow loopy breaking ball. 

There are also many instances where sicking the arm out to get hit that need to be called though.  It doesn't require a rule change, just enforcement emphasis from the commish. 

20 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

It's also a strike and no HBP if the pitch is in the strike zone.  Nobody leans that far though.

Making it so you simply don't get the base if it hits a pad takes all questions out. Did it hit the pad? Yes? No base. No? Head on down to first. Take judgement out of it. Cut and dry.

And I know that's the rule, but guys absolutely do get hit by strikes and get first base. Rizzo being example A. His elbow is in the strike zone a lot.

[Nine of twelve]

3 hours ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

Baseball could legislate certain things that would help:  Automatic ejections/suspensions for HBPs above the shoulder, regardless of intent.  They could also treat HBPs like Technical fouls in basketball.  Fines for each one, suspensions after a certain number on the year.

I like the suggestion of fines/ejections/suspensions for HBP's, especially those above the shoulders. The details would need to be worked out but I think putting that into place would be a good thing.

[glunn]

The NFL recently announced that it is promoting safer helmets for quarterbacks -- https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/sport/nfl-quarterback-helmet-concussion-spt-intl/index.html

[jctwins]

Does anyone remember what the Ben Revere ball to the face was like? That resulted in much more damage didn't it?

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

Strike zone is expanded on the outside for the younger kids but NEVER, EVER on the inside lest we have a bean ball bonanza. 

At what age do the pitchers figure out, "hey, the batter's leaning out over the plate to protect against those calls," and take steps that bring us back to your unwanted bonanza?  

[Nine of twelve]

I don't think batters should be penalized for wearing protective gear. After what happened to Farmer yesterday it doesn't make sense for there to be an incentive to increase the risk of injury from a HBP. That said, highly-armored batters who purposely allow pitches to hit them, especially moving into the path of a pitch, should be subjected to some sort of penalty as well. It's difficult to know how to go about that, but I do have one thought. If a pitch hits a batter in the area between the strike zone and the batters box the pitch would be called a ball but the batter would not be awarded first base (unless the pitch happened to be ball four.) And as an aside, it would be very easy for an electronic pitch-calling system to determine if a pitch was in that zone.

[DJL44]

I actually prefer the fastpitch softball rules for HBP - if you are in the batter's box and get hit it is a free base. You don't have to try to avoid getting hit. If you don't want to put the runner on, don't hit them.

[MN_ExPat]

7 minutes ago, ashbury said:

At what age do the pitchers figure out, "hey, the batter's leaning out over the plate to protect against those calls," and take steps that bring us back to your unwanted bonanza?  

That seems to depend.  My son used to hate it when guys crowded or lean out over the plate, but then he's never minded pitching inside (course he also has really good control though which is why he's still pitching in college despite only throwing mid 80's).

[ashbury]

8 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

I don't think batters should be penalized for wearing protective gear. After what happened to Farmer yesterday it doesn't make sense for there to be an incentive to increase the risk of injury from a HBP. That said, highly-armored batters who purposely allow pitches to hit them, especially moving into the path of a pitch, should be subjected to some sort of penalty as well. It's difficult to know how to go about that, but I do have one thought. If a pitch hits a batter in the area between the strike zone and the batters box the pitch would be called a ball but the batter would not be awarded first base (unless the pitch happened to be ball four.) And as an aside, it would be very easy for an electronic pitch-calling system to determine if a pitch was in that zone.

So, just to be clear, decrease the incentive to not hit batters? (Or pick any other formulation of double-negative you want. A clever writer might even come up with a quadruple-negative. )

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Making it so you simply don't get the base if it hits a pad takes all questions out. Did it hit the pad? Yes? No base. No? Head on down to first. Take judgement out of it. Cut and dry.

And I know that's the rule, but guys absolutely do get hit by strikes and get first base. Rizzo being example A. His elbow is in the strike zone a lot.

I don’t see Rizzo being in the strike zone. Very close and one of the closest you would see but the instance of him actually getting hit by a pitch that’s a strike is still very rare. He should not get first base if that happens. The difference between the textbook zone and called zone probably is the difference.

In youth ball we enforce the plate side of the box (it does have 4 sides) to keep it from being enforced by the pitcher but not so much in MLB.  

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

At what age do the pitchers figure out, "hey, the batter's leaning out over the plate to protect against those calls," and take steps that bring us back to your unwanted bonanza?  

We are forever telling catchers to get back behind the plate. The coaches are smart and know what we are doing so they tell the catcher to keep moving out as long as we keep calling it. Then inevitably they receive a pitch without moving the glove 6-8 inches off and I get yelled at.  We cannot give inside room or they will move that way and kids get hit. 

Its a cat and mouse game that never ends.  I believe it’s also why the MLB umps give the batter benefit of doubt on the avoiding contact. If they didn’t pitchers would be more likely to come in and batters would bail out a fraction earlier. Lose lose situation. 

[Nine of twelve]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

So, just to be clear, decrease the incentive to not hit batters? (Or pick any other formulation of double-negative you want. A clever writer might even come up with a quadruple-negative. )

OK, maybe I'm dense. (According to some people there's no maybe.) But I'm not clear about what's not clear. I didn't say anything about pitchers and I don't understand how you inferred that. I am saying that batters should not have an incentive to forgo the use of protective gear because doing so will increase the risk of injury. The notion that batters should not wear protective gear because going without it will make them more cautious is analogous to the notion that drivers should not use seat belts because going without them will make them more cautious.

[chpettit19]

11 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

I don’t see Rizzo being in the strike zone. Very close and one of the closest you would see but the instance of him actually getting hit by a pitch that’s a strike is still very rare. He should not get first base if that happens. The difference between the textbook zone and called zone probably is the difference.

In youth ball we enforce the plate side of the box (it does have 4 sides) to keep it from being enforced by the pitcher but not so much in MLB.  

Of course it's rare, but it happens. You said nobody leans that far and I'm just saying they do. It does happen. HBP is a relatively rare event itself so of course strikes being HBP is very rare. But it happens. And he shouldn't get first base, but he does. And if you ask the umps to just enforce those kinds of rules you just get guys sticking their elbow out as they spin and it's unrealistic to ask an ump to be able to decipher that in real time while he's trying to track the crazy pitches that are being thrown these days. Eventually it's just too much to expect humans to be able to do all this in real time, and I want nothing to do with replays of whether or not a guy tried to get out of the way. That's why I want cut and dry rules with no interpretation that needs to be done while a ball coming in 100 MPH and moving 8 inches is trying to be deciphered as a ball or strike by a human being in real time.

I'm unclear what you mean by "enforce the plate side of the box." Is there a rule about your body being over the batter's box line, or is it just your feet? They dig out the back line and blur things a little, but their feet are still in the box from what I can tell. I'm just not sure what you mean you're enforcing.

[Mike Sixel]

No way it should only be a ball if the pitcher randomly hits protection. It's a hit batter.

[Jocko87]

25 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Of course it's rare, but it happens. You said nobody leans that far and I'm just saying they do. It does happen. HBP is a relatively rare event itself so of course strikes being HBP is very rare. But it happens. And he shouldn't get first base, but he does. And if you ask the umps to just enforce those kinds of rules you just get guys sticking their elbow out as they spin and it's unrealistic to ask an ump to be able to decipher that in real time while he's trying to track the crazy pitches that are being thrown these days. Eventually it's just too much to expect humans to be able to do all this in real time, and I want nothing to do with replays of whether or not a guy tried to get out of the way. That's why I want cut and dry rules with no interpretation that needs to be done while a ball coming in 100 MPH and moving 8 inches is trying to be deciphered as a ball or strike by a human being in real time.

I'm unclear what you mean by "enforce the plate side of the box." Is there a rule about your body being over the batter's box line, or is it just your feet? They dig out the back line and blur things a little, but their feet are still in the box from what I can tell. I'm just not sure what you mean you're enforcing.

I shouldn’t have been hyperbolic in a rules discussion, everything has happened at least once. One of the things I really love about baseball is that we are still seeing things never before seen.  As for what the human eye can process behind the plate it actually feels pretty slow. I’ve never umped 100mph, not many have, but that hitters can still hit it tells you the brain can process it. 

For the batter box it’s a got a line on the plate side as well. They blur the line because the rule is that the foot must be completely outside of the box when contact is made to be an infraction.  Rule is just about the feet.  I don’t know specifically when MLB stopped drawing the plate side line but it is on every youth field I work. 

Fun sometimes to ask a fan that’s chirping how wide the strike zone is.  Instant stumper. Using this diagram it’s pretty easy to see how Rizzo can be that close.  

 

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

I shouldn’t have been hyperbolic in a rules discussion, everything has happened at least once. One of the things I really love about baseball is that we are still seeing things never before seen.  As for what the human eye can process behind the plate it actually feels pretty slow. I’ve never umped 100mph, not many have, but that hitters can still hit it tells you the brain can process it. 

For the batter box it’s a got a line on the plate side as well. They blur the line because the rule is that the foot must be completely outside of the box when contact is made to be an infraction.  Rule is just about the feet.  I don’t know specifically when MLB stopped drawing the plate side line but it is on every youth field I work. 

Fun sometimes to ask a fan that’s chirping how wide the strike zone is.  Instant stumper. Using this diagram it’s pretty easy to see how Rizzo can be that close.  

 

Of course they can process 100 MPH. What they can't process is a hitter's intent to move out of the way if they turn/spin away from 100 MPH and take it in the elbow. Some judgements are easy right now and umps should just call them dead balls when a guy clearly leans into it. But once they start doing that more frequently hitters will just be more dramatic in their movements and then you're asking them to judge too much all at once. We can't judge if a guy checked his swing or not so I'm not sure how we can judge a guy's legitimate attempt to avoid a pitch if they spin, etc.

They paint the plate side of the box. The first thing many leadoff hitters do is go to the back, plate side corner of the box and dig it out, though. The line is painted. It just doesn't last long with guys digging out and kicking dirt around and they don't repaint it.

[RickOShea]

I played a year and a half of college ball. My teammate took a pitch right on his temple.  In theory, it could have taken his life.  But I remember him sitting on his bed, when on the road, literally staring at the wall.  He never could get a good nights sleep.

[jmlease1]

35 minutes ago, RickOShea said:

I played a year and a half of college ball. My teammate took a pitch right on his temple.  In theory, it could have taken his life.  But I remember him sitting on his bed, when on the road, literally staring at the wall.  He never could get a good nights sleep.

And this is why you can't mess around with safety around the head. You done want these kind of results, ever. We know a lot more about how dangerous concussions are now, and we have to take measures against them. There's no room for machismo and that kind of BS in the face of it (and this is an area where the MLBPA needs to lead for their own members and partner with MLB, rather than reflexively dig in their heels).

The safety improvements need to come into play around the head and face. even a 100mph fastball isn't going to threaten someone's life if it hits them in the wrist or shin or ribs or wherever. When a ball crashes into someone's head, it's different. It just is, and we can do better.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

OK, maybe I'm dense. (According to some people there's no maybe.) But I'm not clear about what's not clear. I didn't say anything about pitchers and I don't understand how you inferred that. I am saying that batters should not have an incentive to forgo the use of protective gear because doing so will increase the risk of injury. The notion that batters should not wear protective gear because going without it will make them more cautious is analogous to the notion that drivers should not use seat belts because going without them will make them more cautious.

Right, you were talking about batters' incentives, but where you then suggested "If a pitch hits a batter in the area between the strike zone and the batters box the pitch would be called a ball but the batter would not be awarded first base (unless the pitch happened to be ball four.) " you have to look at it from the pitcher's perspective too.  By some small amount, perhaps, the disincentive to come inside becomes lowered.  Coming inside is when mistakes have physical consequences beyond just "oops".

[jimbo92107]

Guessing how long Farmer will be out has to start with the fact that they'll be diagnosing what else needs to be fixed after the next ten days, so the swelling can go down from the injury and first surgery. Yikes, I hope we see him back before the All Star game!

Gotta get better jaw protection for those helmets. It's nonsense when players claim it blocks their vision for balls low in the zone. They make their decision if and where to swing based on the pitcher's motion and release. There's no possible way to adjust to the ball in the last ten feet. The human mind can't decide in 1/100th of a second, nor can the muscles adjust the path of a baseball bat in that short snip of time. 

[Irishman]

11 hours ago, wornsmooth said:

Remember Jimmy Hall after being beaten by Bo Belinsky?

He was never the same. 33 HRS as a rookie. He was definitely one of the guys you always wondered if that changed everything.

 

During the Red Sox season of 1967, Tony Conigliaro was hit in the face by a pitch that caused a severe eye injury and derailed his career.  He was not the same after this happened..  I remembered this when it happened.    I believe he passed away at age of around 40s in mid 1970's.  Sad!!!

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Of course they can process 100 MPH. What they can't process is a hitter's intent to move out of the way if they turn/spin away from 100 MPH and take it in the elbow. Some judgements are easy right now and umps should just call them dead balls when a guy clearly leans into it. But once they start doing that more frequently hitters will just be more dramatic in their movements and then you're asking them to judge too much all at once. We can't judge if a guy checked his swing or not so I'm not sure how we can judge a guy's legitimate attempt to avoid a pitch if they spin, etc.

They paint the plate side of the box. The first thing many leadoff hitters do is go to the back, plate side corner of the box and dig it out, though. The line is painted. It just doesn't last long with guys digging out and kicking dirt around and they don't repaint it.

Good examples of the difference between the written rule and implementation. We can certainly see and interpret all of these things, including check swings but actually calling them if more about norms than anything. Like I said, batter gets benefit of the doubt for his movements. I would agree that it could be called much more often. 

[chpettit19]

42 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Good examples of the difference between the written rule and implementation. We can certainly see and interpret all of these things, including check swings but actually calling them if more about norms than anything. Like I said, batter gets benefit of the doubt for his movements. I would agree that it could be called much more often. 

Agree to disagree that major league umps can see, and accurately call (that's the real key here), check swings let alone a hitter's intent on actually getting out of the way when significant movement takes place. There's at least 1 missed check swing call every day across major league baseball. There's simply a limit to how well the human eye can judge that, and there's a limit to how much input the human brain can take at once and accurately interpret. It's not a shot at umps, there's simply a limit to the human brain. I mean missed check swing calls isn't about norms at all. The umps are all trying to call it the same. They simply miss sometimes because there's a limit to the human brain.

[glunn]

44 minutes ago, jimbo92107 said:

Guessing how long Farmer will be out has to start with the fact that they'll be diagnosing what else needs to be fixed after the next ten days, so the swelling can go down from the injury and first surgery. Yikes, I hope we see him back before the All Star game!

Gotta get better jaw protection for those helmets. It's nonsense when players claim it blocks their vision for balls low in the zone. They make their decision if and where to swing based on the pitcher's motion and release. There's no possible way to adjust to the ball in the last ten feet. The human mind can't decide in 1/100th of a second, nor can the muscles adjust the path of a baseball bat in that short snip of time. 

I believe that with a more thoughtful design the impact on a player's ability to see balls low in the zone could be eliminated.

[Squirrel]

Just saw this on IG: