New MLB Batting Helmets

[meetthemets]

I was just going to say it reminds me of the helmet pad thing that guy for the Bills wore way back when. I can't find any pictures, but I have his football card. I might scan it later and post it.

[pcgd]

Honestly, with the way pitcher today have no clue on how to pitch, let alone inside, these are needed, especially since the amount of pitchers that throw 95-100 is increasing every year.

I don't have any facts to back it up, but I bet you'll find beanings above the shoulder are on par year to year if not going down over the last 10 years because pitchers don't throw inside as much. It just so happened that a few happened in the same night.

Everyone talks about how the pitchers in 20+ years knew how to throw inside, but not everyone was Bob Gibson and Sandy Kolfax. There were crappy pitchers back then too...you just don't hear about them because they were...well crappy.

But...everything is always better in our memories. Everything today sucks right?

[BallWonk]

These look ridiculous...

You're right: two-color batting helmets are completely ridiculous.

I do worry a bit about these helmets. Football, for example, long ago passed the point where the weight and cumbersomeness of its "safety" equipment actually increases the danger to players. (Numerous studies have found increases in both the incidence and severity of football-related injuries, in several cases even highly suggestive correlations between the introduction of new gear requirements and subsequent jumps in injuries.) In the case of the new batting helmets, I just hope they make a positive tradeoff between protection from impact and the weight and size of the helmets. A heavier helmet means slower head movements, so turning or ducking away from pitches will be harder. A larger helmet means less peripheral vision, so seeing pitches that need ducking away from will also be harder. I understand that a pitch over 90-95 mph is nearly impossible either to see or avoid, so if there's a pitch that fast coming at your head you'd gladly trade vision and mobility for impact survivability. But there is a reasonable chance that these helmets will make 80-85 mph pitches harder to avoid, and since those pitches are more common, this could plausibly be a net safety reducer. So I hope that someone at MLB has actually studied the tradeoffs to confirm that they're not adopting a "safety" device that actually makes players less safe.

[njmeadowlanders]

Courtesy of my favorite Mets blogger Metstradamus:

[njmeadowlanders]

Barry Bonds called...he'd like his helmet back...

[Buster]

Barry Bonds called...he'd like his helmet back...

Mark Kelso

Lets hope THIS does not happen:

[McCall]

Ditch the Cool-Flo helmets and go back to the regular ones. Not nearly as thin and more padding. Plus they actually look normal. Problem solved. These big things may give a player whiplash or snap their neck as they're running the bases.

[njmeadowlanders]

Ditch the Cool-Flo helmets and go back to the regular ones. Not nearly as thin and more padding. Plus they actually look normal. Problem solved. These big things may give a player whiplash or snap their neck as they're running the bases.

I didn't see any of the game last night, but did Wright trade his Gazoo Helmet for a regular one once he got on base?

[Top Shelf]

These look ridiculous...

Only thing that came to mind...

Apparently the Mets' broadcasters must read this board, for they made the same comparison during last night's game.

[Jamikel]

These look ridiculous...

You're right: two-color batting helmets are completely ridiculous.

I do worry a bit about these helmets. Football, for example, long ago passed the point where the weight and cumbersomeness of its "safety" equipment actually increases the danger to players. (Numerous studies have found increases in both the incidence and severity of football-related injuries, in several cases even highly suggestive correlations between the introduction of new gear requirements and subsequent jumps in injuries.) In the case of the new batting helmets, I just hope they make a positive tradeoff between protection from impact and the weight and size of the helmets. A heavier helmet means slower head movements, so turning or ducking away from pitches will be harder. A larger helmet means less peripheral vision, so seeing pitches that need ducking away from will also be harder. I understand that a pitch over 90-95 mph is nearly impossible either to see or avoid, so if there's a pitch that fast coming at your head you'd gladly trade vision and mobility for impact survivability. But there is a reasonable chance that these helmets will make 80-85 mph pitches harder to avoid, and since those pitches are more common, this could plausibly be a net safety reducer. So I hope that someone at MLB has actually studied the tradeoffs to confirm that they're not adopting a "safety" device that actually makes players less safe.

I thought part of the reason football pads lead to more injuries was because players now tackle by using their bodies as projectiles, essentially making their padding a weapon. I don't really see that happening in baseball.

[Sport]

I've worn the old classic batting helmet that's been around for what seems like nearly 40 years and I've worn the cool-flo and I must say that the old helmets that many teams still use felt much sturdier and safer. Cool flo helmets just feel cheesier. Of course I have no evidence to back this up, but it seems like the cool-flo helmets took a step=backwards in terms of safety. We don't need to put a pillow on our baseball players heads, we just need to ditch cool-flo. But, like I said, I have no evidence other than personal experience to base this opinion on.

[The_Admiral]

CoolFlo helmets are "branded," though. Any old company could manufacture a big clunky old helmet and you'd never know. Can't have that.

[BBTV]

I've worn the old classic batting helmet that's been around for what seems like nearly 40 years and I've worn the cool-flo and I must say that the old helmets that many teams still use felt much sturdier and safer. Cool flo helmets just feel cheesier. Of course I have no evidence to back this up, but it seems like the cool-flo helmets took a step=backwards in terms of safety. We don't need to put a pillow on our baseball players heads, we just need to ditch cool-flo. But, like I said, I have no evidence other than personal experience to base this opinion on.

Unless you've stood in there and allowed someone to fire a >90mph fastball into your dome, I'm not sure that you're qualified to evaluate the safety of cool-flo vs. regular vs. kazoo.

Not that you might not be right, but I have to doubt that the union would allow it if it was unsafe.

[Gothamite]

You're putting a lot of faith in the intelligence of union membership. They're just as susceptible to blind panic as anybody else.

If MLB can make coaches wear helmets because somebody was killed by an unrelated injury without a peep from anyone, then why should we think the union would stand up against the "it'll make you safer" argument now?

These look ridiculous...

You're right: two-color batting helmets are completely ridiculous.

I do worry a bit about these helmets. Football, for example, long ago passed the point where the weight and cumbersomeness of its "safety" equipment actually increases the danger to players. (Numerous studies have found increases in both the incidence and severity of football-related injuries, in several cases even highly suggestive correlations between the introduction of new gear requirements and subsequent jumps in injuries.) In the case of the new batting helmets, I just hope they make a positive tradeoff between protection from impact and the weight and size of the helmets. A heavier helmet means slower head movements, so turning or ducking away from pitches will be harder. A larger helmet means less peripheral vision, so seeing pitches that need ducking away from will also be harder. I understand that a pitch over 90-95 mph is nearly impossible either to see or avoid, so if there's a pitch that fast coming at your head you'd gladly trade vision and mobility for impact survivability. But there is a reasonable chance that these helmets will make 80-85 mph pitches harder to avoid, and since those pitches are more common, this could plausibly be a net safety reducer. So I hope that someone at MLB has actually studied the tradeoffs to confirm that they're not adopting a "safety" device that actually makes players less safe.

I thought part of the reason football pads lead to more injuries was because players now tackle by using their bodies as projectiles, essentially making their padding a weapon. I don't really see that happening in baseball.

Maybe not, but it is not unreasonable to presume that players decked out in body armor might feel safer crowding the plate. Which may result in more players being hit by pitches.

Besides, Wonk lays out another equally plausible scenario above - the new helmets might cut down on visibility, making it harder for players to see/avoid fastballs, and again actually causing the number of beanings to increase.

[meetthemets]

David Wright wore a double-ear flapped version of the new helmet last night instead of the normal single-flap helmet. Don't have pics but I didn't think it could get any goofier looking, but it did.

[Wasatch]

reminds me of this

What?s the story behind this external ?padding? as you like to call it?

[BBTV]

reminds me of this

What's the story behind this external "padding" as you like to call it?

I think it's pretty obvious... extra padding to (supposedly) reduce chance of concussion.

You'reputting a lot of faith in the intelligence of unionmembership. They're just as susceptible to blind panic as anybody else.

If MLB can make coaches wear helmets because somebody was killed by an unrelated injury without a peep from anyone, then why should we think the union would stand up against the "it'll make you safer" argument now?

There were certainly peeps from peeps (Larry Bowa, most notably) but the coaches aren't in the MLBPA. I'd also suspect that there were insurance-related reasons for the coaches helmets.

You're right - I do put faith in the union (at least when it comes to things like equipment). It doesn't make much sense for them not to do their own testing on all new safety equipment and give it the "ok" before going live with it... especially something designed to make you not die. I have to think that with all the money involved, they do at least that much.

[BallWonk]

You're right - I do put faith in the union (at least when it comes to things like equipment). It doesn't make much sense for them not to do their own testing on all new safety equipment and give it the "ok" before going live with it... especially something designed to make you not die. I have to think that with all the money involved, they do at least that much.

Before I start sharing your very generous-hearted sentiments about the good faith and competence of any sport's player's union, I first must ask: Can you provide previous examples of a player's union conducting scientifically rigorous tests of new equipment to assure safety and effectiveness? I can't think of any, and in fact several sports' player's unions have actively colluded in league initiatives that have harmed their members. I'm strongly pro-union on a personal level, but most sports unions have been among the worst of the worst in terms of screwing their own membership on basic issues of workplace safety and healthcare. But I'll happily trade my skepticism for rose-colored glasses if anyone can cite any previous examples of the MLBPA conducting independent safety reviews of any piece of new equipment.

And I should say that my concerns about possible negative, unintended consequences of the new helmets are not based on any factual knowledge. For all I know, MLB has tested these helmets and found that the cost/benefit balance between added weight and size and increased padding is vastly positive, and the new helmets are a terrific innovation. I just worry because I am aware of very little historical precedent for any league, including MLB, taking any such care with this sort of equipment decision.

[Gothamite]

Look, I'm a union guy in general. I've belonged to several in my lifetime, often a couple at once, I'm in a union right now (though inactive) and desperately trying to join another.

But this union isn't exactly the Platonic ideal of its type. Given its reluctance to do anything about performance-enhancing drugs, why do we think they'll put player safety high on their list of priorities?

[BBTV]

Of course I can't cite any examples. It's also tough to cite any examples of them screwing over their membership either. I think there are two sides to the PED thing, though I certainly see where it looks like they didn't care about the health or welfare of their members there. I just think that they seem to be so involved in everything that affects players in even the slightest way that they (almost by default) had to be involved in this. There's just too much at stake for them not to.

Players listen to their agents and their union before anyone else. I cannot believe that a player, especially one who just got nailed in the skull, would put on a piece of equipment like that without having reasonable evidence that it would protect him at least as much as the piece of equipment it's designed to replace. I just don't believe the other poster's claim that this new helmet was in some way less protective.