Haha yeah I have a lot of tickets I get on first base side about row 12-15 and I just go knowing the risks/rewards of going to cheer on the Rangers.

I just agree with Gigem too that it is just as prevalent as people being struck by lightning. In order to live a happy life, one must take risks sometimes IMO, no matter how slight they may be

quote:

---

Haha yeah I have a lot of tickets I get on first base side about row 12-15 and I just go knowing the risks/rewards of going to cheer on the Rangers.

I just agree with Gigem too that it is just as prevalent as people being struck by lightning. In order to live a happy life, one must take risks sometimes IMO

---

And I agree with you that people do need to pay more attention, especially sitting in that area. But the fact is, more and more people are so focused on their phones nowadays that the likelihood of someone getting seriously hurt is much higher

But yeah, good talk. If this were on the Astros board, death threats would have been flying all over the place by now

quote:

---

So there were 73,760,020 fans that attended baseball games in 2015, with 1750 being injured.

Odds of being injured by a foul ball are .0023%.

Odds of being struck by lightning are .03%.

I think the problem is
1. today's society is too busy on their phones
2. Ticket prices have priced real fans out of games (at least seats that are in danger of foul balls), in turn people who haven't a clue what a foul ball is, don't pay attention to the game half the time.

That being said I wouldn't be opposed to lining the nets up to the bases.

---

I get what you are saying, but only 10% or so of those fans are at any risk to getting injured by a foul ball (only the fans along the baselines where there is no net. 10% is just a rough guess on my part. That makes the odds of being injured .023%. Obviously, that's still very low. But that's just the odds of getting injured in one season and doesn't take into account the fact that you may attend games for the next 30 years (the lightning stat is your chance of being struck in your lifetime).

Anyways, that's enough rambling from me comparing baseball to lightning. I still vote for no nets.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm glad I was a kid in the 1980's.

---

Elaborate...Would you agree or disagree with extending the nets?

---

Disagree...but I understand it's a business.

quote:

---

There are 1,750 spectators who are injured every year by batted balls at major league games, according to an analysis by the Bloomberg News. There are 53,000 foul balls that enter the seats every year, according to Edwin Comber, creator of foulballz.com.

---

Why weren't nets put up last year? Or the year before? Or last decade? Or 50 years ago? Why now?

Our kids live in a society that in many places is less free than the one we grew up in.

My dad had cherry bombs. No more cherry bombs.
I had bottle rockets. No more bottle rockets.
I had merry-go-rounds. No more merry-go-rounds.
I played tackle football and dodge ball at school. No more of either of those. Hell, they won't all touch football any more.

A lot of good points made on this thread. m_hayden made a great point with the "tipping point" comment. The lightning example was eye opening.

So disappointing.

quote:

---

Way fewer kids are going to get foul ball souvenirs now.

---

...and unfortunately, a big reason my son wants to go the games.

Why not just have everyone wear helmets?

What about those statistics is "really bad"? Odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 3000, odds of attending baseball game and being struck by a foul ball are much lower. I was just putting things in perspective. While 1750 seems like a big number, it's not in the grand scheme of things. I figured, since we're all baseball fans here that it would be understood that not all seats are in danger.

quote:

---

Why weren't nets put up last year? Or the year before? Or last decade? Or 50 years ago? Why now?

---

Because there existed a time when people went to baseball games for the love of the game; they enjoyed watching baseball. Now, it's a social event where people are going not for the experience of watching baseball, but hanging out with their friends. They want to check in at the ballpark, instagram this, hashtag that, and show all of their friends on every social media outlet they use to show where they're at and what they're doing.

I love baseball. It's my favorite sport, and I love going to games. I always take my glove, even if I'm sitting in an area that doesn't typically get foul balls. At the same, I value my safety and the safety of others around me.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Haha yeah I have a lot of tickets I get on first base side about row 12-15 and I just go knowing the risks/rewards of going to cheer on the Rangers.

I just agree with Gigem too that it is just as prevalent as people being struck by lightning. In order to live a happy life, one must take risks sometimes IMO

---

And I agree with you that people do need to pay more attention, especially sitting in that area. But the fact is, more and more people are so focused on their phones nowadays that the likelihood of someone getting seriously hurt is much higher

But yeah, good talk. If this were on the Astros board, death threats would have been flying all over the place by now

---

Couldn't agree with this statement more

This was inevitable, unfortunately.

Frankly, I call bs on the 1750 injured. That means that on average, most games, someone is injured. I don't believe that.

Anything getting in the way of me enjoying a game when I'm there will be a nuisance. If the nets aren't too view blocking it may not matter. If they are, I'll start reducing how often I go to the ballpark.

The 1,750 injury number -- does it account for injuries that ONLY occur from dugout to dugout on the first level? Otherwise you need to subtract any of the injuries that happen outside the proposed netted area -- homeruns, deep foul balls, upper-deck shots, etc... to get a # that reflects injuries that are actually going to be prevented by these nets.

I bet you'd fine the # of injuries per baseball game in between the nets is not higher than the # of injuries in the GA/Pit area of a concert.

The real reason the lightning comparison doesn't work? You can't sue a bolt of lightning.

This isn't a true safety issue, it's a liability issue. Doesn't matter how stupid people are, if there's a simple way to prevent some of them from filing a lawsuit against your franchise (for whatever reason), then those steps will be taken.

You think those $7/hour "security guards" at stadiums are there to stop someone who really wants to bring a weapon into the stadium from doing so? You think the old lady searching through a purse is really adept at identifying something like a pipe bomb?

Hell no. They are there so that if something bad DOES happen the ownership can claim that they took reasonable preventative measures so they don't get their ass sued.

It's about $$$, not safety.

quote:

---

The 1,750 injury number -- does it account for injuries that ONLY occur from dugout to dugout on the first level? Otherwise you need to subtract any of the injuries that happen outside the proposed netted area -- homeruns, deep foul balls, upper-deck shots, etc... to get a # that reflects injuries that are actually going to be prevented by these nets.

I bet you'd fine the # of injuries per baseball game in between the nets is not higher than the # of injuries in the GA/Pit area of a concert.

The real reason the lightning comparison doesn't work? You can't sue a bolt of lightning.

This isn't a true safety issue, it's a liability issue. Doesn't matter how stupid people are, if there's a simple way to prevent some of them from filing a lawsuit against your franchise (for whatever reason), then those steps will be taken.

You think those $7/hour "security guards" at stadiums are there to stop someone who really wants to bring a weapon into the stadium from doing so? You think the old lady searching through a purse is really adept at identifying something like a pipe bomb?

Hell no. They are there so that if something bad DOES happen the ownership can claim that they took reasonable preventative measures so they don't get their ass sued.

It's about $$$, not safety.

---

Net or no net, a lawsuit may not hold up in court due to the assumption of risk

quote:

---

What about those statistics is "really bad"? Odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 3000, odds of attending baseball game and being struck by a foul ball are much lower. I was just putting things in perspective. While 1750 seems like a big number, it's not in the grand scheme of things. I figured, since we're all baseball fans here that it would be understood that not all seats are in danger.

---

Odds of being struck by lightning at any time of your life is 1 in 3000. You are comparing that to the odds of being struck by a baseball at one game.

Plus, the odds you are using for baseball counts fans who are in absolutely no danger. The odds should only be for the fans that have a possibility of being hit, the fans along the baseline. Using all fans would be like using all people in the lightning example, even if there were people that lived on another planet where lightning didn't exist.

The 1750 number does seem really high. To look at it another way, around 3.5% of all foul balls cause an injury. That seems much higher than I expected. I don't know what they consider to be an "injury" though. They may be including a scrape on the finger.

What would hold up in court really doesn't matter, the idea is to prevent litigation in the first place.

Right, I'm assuming they must be including bruises and scrapes, and probably also non-baseball injuries, like wresting with other fans for the ball or falling over a seat going for a ball. Otherwise, there is no way thats an accurate number. People are not having to get treated by the on-site paramedics that often.

quote:

---

What would hold up in court really doesn't matter, the idea is to prevent litigation in the first place.

---

Well you argued that it's a liability issue more than it's a safety issue. That led me to believe you were implying somebody might file a lawsuit against a team if there was an injury in an area where this isn't a net (behind the dugout).

I'm not disagreeing with you that it isn't a liability issue, but I do disagree that it's liability more than safety. I really think they are trying to kill two birds with one stone

Well maybe if you weren't so accident prone they wouldn't have to take these measures.

quote:

---

Well maybe if you weren't so accident prone they wouldn't have to take these measures.

---

good one

Well...on another note, the Angels just signed Gentry.

quote:

---

Well...on another note, the Angels just signed Gentry.

---

And no one has commented on Mark ****ing Lowe's $11 million payday.

Lets put up plexiglass everywhere..... For safetys sake of course!!!!!

And the Orioles offered Chris Davis 150 mill...

The puzzification of America is almost complete.

The San Diego Padres made an interesting move yesterday by acquiring Christian Bethancourt. This gives them two premiere, major league ready, catcher prospects (Bethancourt. Austin Hedges) to go along with solid veteran Derek Norris. I'd like the rangers to get a piece of this in some way.

quote:

---

And the Orioles offered Chris Davis 150 mill...

---

The 7 year $150M offer is now off the table. That's $21.4M/yr.

Baltimore had 2.3M in attendance in 2015.

If they have 2.3M in 2016, that would mean every ticket sold would include $9.30 to pay for Chris Davis.

I don't know that I would pay $9.30 to see Chris Davis...

FOR SEVEN YEARS!

quote:

---

quote:

---

And the Orioles offered Chris Davis 150 mill...

---

The 7 year $150M offer is now off the table. That's $21.4M/yr.

Baltimore had 2.3M in attendance in 2015.

If they have 2.3M in 2016, that would mean every ticket sold would include $9.30 to pay for Chris Davis.

I don't know that I would pay $9.30 to see Chris Davis...

FOR SEVEN YEARS!

---

Right. You'll be too busy paying about $9.30 a game to watch Shin-Soo Choo the next five years.

the adderall need is a pretty big concern when committing 7 years.

quote:

---

So there were 73,760,020 fans that attended baseball games in 2015, with 1750 being injured.

Odds of being injured by a foul ball are .0023%.

Odds of being struck by lightning are .03%.

I think the problem is
1. today's society is too busy on their phones
2. Ticket prices have priced real fans out of games (at least seats that are in danger of foul balls), in turn people who haven't a clue what a foul ball is, don't pay attention to the game half the time.

That being said I wouldn't be opposed to lining the nets up to the bases.

---

Those odds look nice, except we still don't go stand on a mountain top holding up a metal poll in a thunderstorm, right? (Also, that's lifetime stat for lightning, right?)

That's the extreme example, but it the clear illustration that odds aren't the same for everyone, everywhere and we take precautions

(EDIT- and now that I read the thread I see this faulty comparison has been addressed already by some)

I'd guess a pretty significant portion of the injuries occur down close to the field along the foul lines beyond the dugout where they're planning to put the nets up. If you sit there, your odds are higher of getting injured. Perhaps magnitudes higher.

I don't know if the real odds still justify the nets or not, but I'm also not sure how much the nets will hurt views---they can make nets pretty "transparent" these days and I know my friends are happy to tweet, snapchat, facebook them sitting in the nice seats behind home plate watching the game through a net, so hopefully any nets that go up aren't a big deal as far as views.

They went through this a few years ago in the NHL after an incident with a rogue puck. I can't say the higher glass and additional netting has hurt my experience at any hockey games.

quote:

---

Why weren't nets put up last year? Or the year before? Or last decade? Or 50 years ago? Why now?

Our kids live in a society that in many places is less free than the one we grew up in.

My dad had cherry bombs. No more cherry bombs.
I had bottle rockets. No more bottle rockets.
I had merry-go-rounds. No more merry-go-rounds.
I played tackle football and dodge ball at school. No more of either of those. Hell, they won't all touch football any more.

A lot of good points made on this thread. m_hayden made a great point with the "tipping point" comment. The lightning example was eye opening.

So disappointing.

---

One guess is the Red Sox got sued in August by a fan that was hit in the face, suffering fractures and nerve damage, by a foul ball.

A second guess is that a fan got hit in the head by a foul ball this past season in Chicago, she was sitting just past the end of the netting, at the same game Commissioner Manfred was attending right after he ironically gave a speech about fan safety. It probably got his attention.

Those might have had something to do with it. Much of the time it is reactionary. We don't realize or appreciate risks until something bad happens in front of our eyes. The NHL added netting and glass about 10 years after a 13 year-old girl was struck and killed by a puck. Was that the wrong response from the NHL just because they should have thought of it 50 years prior?

We realize a lot of risks after the fact. Doesn't mean we shouldn't adjust just because we were late to the party. (Super extreme example: 9/11 opened the intelligence community to a lot of flaws in a system they previously thought did a pretty good job of keeping us safe. Should we have rejected changes to a malfunctioning IC just because the changes should have been made years before?)



Part of it is that we're just a litigious society. (See first guess). That's not MLB or NHL's fault. That's their fan's fault.

Will these nets be high enough to catch Josh's wild ass bat flings?

quote:

---

1. today's society is too busy on their phones

2. Ticket prices have priced real fans out of games (at least seats that are in danger of foul balls), in turn people who haven't a clue what a foul ball is, don't pay attention to the game half the time.

---

Great points, certainly wouldn't estimate #2