The Pitching Helmet?

[Always Red]

If pitchers were still allowed to pitch inside (without a warning issued for every pitch off the plate inside) then they might not need more protection on the mound at all?

[George Anderson]

Injuries are awesome. Skull fractures especially

My favorite part, is when, depending on the location and severity of the injury, you have to relearn stuff like how to walk and eat.

Suck it up wimps.

Living life carries a certain amount of risks. If skull fractures concern you so much I am sure you require all passengers in your car wear helmets correct??

[RedsManRick]

If pitchers were still allowed to pitch inside (without a warning issued for every pitch off the plate inside) then they might not need more protection on the mound at all?

I'm pretty sure the helmet is to protect them from line drives, which still happened back in the day when pitchers could pitch inside.

Seriously though, people have scoffed at nearly every safety measure in sports, from football helmets to hockey goalie masks. I doubt many people would want to roll those back.

[Spitball]

This is the Youtube of Sports Science researching former Red Sox pitcher Bryce Florie's scary combacker accident from the 2000 season. It is pretty interesting.

A fastball coming in towards the plate at 95 mph comes back towards the pitcher at 120 mph. A pitch of this speed hitting a helmut has 2,400 pounds of force and not enough to cause a concussion. That same pitch batted back at the pitcher makes contact with a force of 5,500 pounds, or enough force to stop a Mini Cooper traveling at 10 mph dead in its tracks.

YouTube - Sport Science - Episode 8 - Bryce Florie

[Eric_the_Red]

If batters have to wear a helmet, why not pitchers? As Spitball stated above, the ball actually can be hit back at them faster than the pitch to the batter.

And cars have seatbelts and (usually) airbags these days, so the helmets while driving argument is obsolete.

[George Anderson]

And cars have seatbelts and (usually) airbags these days, so the helmets while driving argument is obsolete.

People die every day from head injuries in cars regardless if air bags go off or not. Especially people in the back seat where there is no air bag protection. If we are going to be consistent and if our main objective is to reduce head injuries then we need to mandate helmets in cars and in hundreds of other daily life activities.

Basketball is a perfect example. Look a how many players have come crashing down to the floor and had severe head injuries. Just this past year a Southern Indiana University basketball player died from hitting his head on the floor. If he had been wearing a helmet he would be alive today. So again lets be consistent and if we are going require pitchers to wear helmets then basketball players should be forced to likewise.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4828047

Now this event is tragic of course but we could just realize that with living life comes the possibility of injury or death. Or we could just mandate that helmets be worn outside the home or even in the home should any type of activity be engaged in that might cause harm to someone.

[mth123]

People die every day from head injuries in cars regardless if air bags go off or not. Especially people in the back seat where there is no air bag protection. If we are going to be consistent and if our main objective is to reduce head injuries then we need to mandate helmets in cars and in hundreds of other daily life activities.

Basketball is a perfect example. Look a how many players have come crashing down to the floor and had severe head injuries. Just this past year a Southern Indiana University basketball player died from hitting his head on the floor. If he had been wearing a helmet he would be alive today. So again lets be consistent and if we are going require pitchers to wear helmets then basketball players should be forced to likewise.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4828047

Now this event is tragic of course but we could just realize that with living life comes the possibility of injury or death. Or we could just mandate that helmets be worn outside the home or even in the home should any type of activity be engaged in that might cause harm to someone.

I think bringing all this other stuff into it is kind of crazy. Why does the fact that other things might be risky have any connection to this one particular issue? It seems to me the only important facts are:

1. Does it protect the players head a little and decrease his chance of a debiltating injury?

2. Are there some other adverse impacts that would be created by wearing them that would negate the added safety of extra head protection?

3. Has the equipment advanced to the point where wearing them would be practical in terms of weight, line of sight, cost and other factors related to this decision?

Not sure what having somebody wearing a helmet in your car has to do with anythng. In my opinion the risk associated with any other unrelated activity is about as much of a factor in this decisoin as the phases of the moon, the day of the week or the color of your dog.

[camisadelgolf]

I'm pretty sure the helmet is to protect them from line drives, which still happened back in the day when pitchers could pitch inside.

Seriously though, people have scoffed at nearly every safety measure in sports, from football helmets to hockey goalie masks. I doubt many people would want to roll those back.

I have no problem with the existence of safety gear in sports. I only dislike it when it becomes required. I love to see a football league in which some players wear helmets while others do not.

[Yachtzee]

We should get rid of pads in football, how cool would those injuries be?

I can't remember where I read it, but I recall some people theorizing that the severe concussions we see today in organized football is caused because the players have too much protection. It has supposedly let to players feeling somewhat invincible and therefore launching themselves at other players at forces not seen in days of yore.

[Spitball]

I can't remember where I read it, but I recall some people theorizing that the severe concussions we see today in organized football is caused because the players have too much protection. It has supposedly let to players feeling somewhat invincible and therefore launching themselves at other players at forces not seen in days of yore.

I have heard this argument, but I don't agree.

As you said, people can theorize all sorts of things, but it is much more likely that athletes today are larger, faster, stronger, and are more aware of technique that enables them to dish out more punishment on opponents. I can't imagine how equipment could possibly trump the energy that comes with the competitive endeavor.

[Yachtzee]

I have heard this argument, but I don't agree.

As you said, people can theorize all sorts of things, but it is much more likely that athletes today are larger, faster, stronger, and are more aware of technique that enables them to dish out more punishment on opponents. I can't imagine how equipment could possibly trump the energy that comes with the competitive endeavor.

I believe the factors of improved fitness among players was taken into account. If I remember the argument correctly, the advances in technology in protective gear have lead to changes in techniques among football players in which they seek to make a spectacular hit by leading with their helmets and shoulders down instead of keeping them up and wrapping the opposing player up with a body tackle. The result is that players are knocking into each other and hitting the ground with the type of force equivalent to being in multiple car accidents in a single game. If I have time later, I'll try to find the article.

[757690]

I think that there a significant and meaningful difference between a batter facing a pitched ball and a pitcher facing a batted ball.

A batter is focusing on hitting the ball, and expecting it somewhere around the strike zone.

A pitcher, after he has released the pitch, is focusing on the ball and if it is hit. He is, or at least should be, expecting the ball to be hit back at him. At the very least, his primary focus after pitching the ball, is re-acting to the results of the pitched ball.

If a ball goes near a hitter, it is very unexpected. It only happens a few times a game, and the hitter is zoned in on hitting it, not getting out of it's way.

But a batted ball gets hit back towards the pitcher all the time, a few times an inning in some cases, and the pitcher is focused on re-acting to the batted ball.

Hitters get hit by a pitch all the time, but pitchers rarely get hit with a batted ball, even though there are far more times that a pitcher needs to get out of the way of batted ball than a hitter needs to get out of the way of a pitched ball.

This is why I think it's smart to have hitters wear helmets, but not pitchers.

[Caveman Techie]

http://www.playfor4.org/default.asp

In the Majors I'm fine with them not mandating the use of a pitching helmet, those are professionals and if they choose not to then fine.

However, at the younger ages and wherever metal bats are used, I think the pitcher should be using a helmet. Check the page out there are even some pictures of what the pitching helmet looks like and it doesn't look all that bad. (Helmet

[Chip R]

http://www.playfor4.org/default.asp

In the Majors I'm fine with them not mandating the use of a pitching helmet, those are professionals and if they choose not to then fine.

However, at the younger ages and wherever metal bats are used, I think the pitcher should be using a helmet. Check the page out there are even some pictures of what the pitching helmet looks like and it doesn't look all that bad. (Helmet

Thanks for the links. I'm not sure that helmet's going to help out much if the kid gets a line drive anywhere below the top of the ear.

[Spitball]

I think that there a significant and meaningful difference between a batter facing a pitched ball and a pitcher facing a batted ball.

A batter is focusing on hitting the ball, and expecting it somewhere around the strike zone.

A pitcher, after he has released the pitch, is focusing on the ball and if it is hit. He is, or at least should be, expecting the ball to be hit back at him. At the very least, his primary focus after pitching the ball, is re-acting to the results of the pitched ball.

If a ball goes near a hitter, it is very unexpected. It only happens a few times a game, and the hitter is zoned in on hitting it, not getting out of it's way.

But a batted ball gets hit back towards the pitcher all the time, a few times an inning in some cases, and the pitcher is focused on re-acting to the batted ball.

Hitters get hit by a pitch all the time, but pitchers rarely get hit with a batted ball, even though there are far more times that a pitcher needs to get out of the way of batted ball than a hitter needs to get out of the way of a pitched ball.

This is why I think it's smart to have hitters wear helmets, but not pitchers.

I'm guessing you didn't watch the Sports Science video I posted above. Batters may get hit more often, but pitchers are subject to balls hit back towards them at a much higher rate of velocity and with more than twice the amount of force.

Watch the Bryce Florie portion of the video. He had no chance to react. A ball launched at 120 mph towards a pitcher 55 feet away after following through on his delivery has little chance to react in time to defend himself.