Protection

[Kevin Finnerty]

I thought of another: I didn't see it happen, but I got the story from many brothers, and the guy himself: The single most athletic and youthful and skillful umpire in our local JUCO and H.S. associations got drilled in the thigh by a ball that glanced off the pitcher's foot. He had a bruise the size of a football. A few inches up and he loses or bruises a jewel. He's an ex-D-I and professional player and was extremely proud of his mobility and skills---until he got drilled by a ricochet. He also never wore a cup on the bases---until he got drilled by a ricochet.

I just can't imagine a single benefit to going without one on the bases. A barely discernible degree of added comfort is worth risking one of the most painful injuries one can suffer on a diamond?? ... I simply don't relate to that level of totally needless risk-taking.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I just can't imagine a single benefit to going without one on the bases. A barely discernible degree of added comfort is worth risking one of the most painful injuries one can suffer on a diamond?? ... I simply don't relate to that level of totally needless risk-taking.

Others, however, do relate. It really simply is a risk-reward calculation. So some have made a choice based on their assessment of the risk (probability of occurrence) relative to the discomfort or whatever. We all make these choices every day in every aspect of our lives. Should I drive 60 instead of 55? The risk of death is higher at 60 than 45. Hell at 5 mph, its probably damn near impossible to die in a car wreck...

Everyone has his own subjective taste and preferences for things like risk. So it might also be more than "a sign of both stupidity and misplaced pride to go without a cup on the bases. " In fact, it likely is something else.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Hell at 5 mph, its probably damn near impossible to die in a car wreck...

Unless, of course, the other car is doing 70.

[Forest Ump]

Welllll as long as we are getting close up and personal. I started wearing compression pants this year with the cup holder sewn in. Couldn’t stand the feel of it. Seemed like I was always adjusting, if you know what I mean. Went back to the strap. Much better because it floats and yes I do wear one on the bases. I'll bet you my next game fee that Beltre does too.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

Welllll as long as we are getting close up and personal. I started wearing compression pants this year with the cup holder sewn in. Couldn’t stand the feel of it. Seemed like I was always adjusting, if you know what I mean. Went back to the strap. Much better because it floats and yes I do wear one on the bases. I'll bet you my next game fee that Beltre does too.

I guess I have different idea of what constitutes "floating".

I used to wear a compression short in which only the top of the cupholder was sewn, or attached. It floated, meaning it moved around considerably, especially behind the plate.

I now wear compression shorts in which the cup holder is sewn on all sides and stays firmly in place. I wear this both behind the plate and on the bases.

Regarding "risk/rewad"...anyone making the decision not to wear a cup on this basis, IMO, does not fulliy comprehend the risk. Losing a testical is a real and PAINFUL risk.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

Welllll as long as we are getting close up and personal. I started wearing compression pants this year with the cup holder sewn in. Couldn’t stand the feel of it. Seemed like I was always adjusting, if you know what I mean. Went back to the strap. Much better because it floats and yes I do wear one on the bases. I'll bet you my next game fee that Beltre does too.

Try the Shock Doctor compression shorts. The cup stays where it belongs and floats along with your movements.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Others, however, do relate. It really simply is a risk-reward calculation. So some have made a choice based on their assessment of the risk (probability of occurrence) relative to the discomfort or whatever. We all make these choices every day in every aspect of our lives. Should I drive 60 instead of 55? The risk of death is higher at 60 than 45. Hell at 5 mph, its probably damn near impossible to die in a car wreck...

Everyone has his own subjective taste and preferences for things like risk. So it might also be more than "a sign of both stupidity and misplaced pride to go without a cup on the bases. " In fact, it likely is something else.

The risk is worth the reward. And the reward is ... ??

Equating it to doing something necessary like driving is specious as hell, but it was entertaining to read. Risk-reward calculation ... that's some funny stuff.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The risk is worth the reward. And the reward is ... ??

Equating it to doing something necessary like driving is specious as hell, but it was entertaining to read. Risk-reward calculation ... that's some funny stuff.

He said the reward was not having to put up with the "discomfort or whatever".

The driving thing makes sense. If you drive faster you get there quicker but it is more dangerous. Some people wear smaller chest protectors which don't protect as well. They understand that the protection isn't as great as a West Vest model but they prefer one which is cooler and lighter. They don't think the extra protection is worth having to deal with the heavier and hotter chest protector.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Of course it makes sense ... to you.

There is virtually nothing that can happen to us on a baseball field that is more painful than a jewel shot. A dull thud to the chest and the resultant soreness to the general chest area due to an inadequate soft shell is not even in the same area code as a jewel shot.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Oh, I'm sorry; that car thing really isn't a specious comparison. It's quite cogent, actually. Wow, you opened my eyes!

Okay, LDUB, now what do you think?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Of course it makes sense ... to you.

There is virtually nothing that can happen to us on a baseball field that is more painful than a jewel shot. A dull thud to the chest and the resultant soreness to the general chest area due to an inadequate soft shell is not even in the same area code as a jewel shot.

The point of the car example was less one comparability with a shot to one's gonads and more one of illustration about risk-reward trade offs; after all life is full of trade offs we all make every day.

Anyway, while maybe not more painful, a line drive to one's carotid artery could have more dire consequences, ie death. I choose not to wear a mask and a throat guard while I work the bases for lots of reasons you may or may not find humorous, but I risk death. (A man was killed recently at Lynchburg College in Virginia, when a batted ball struck him in the neck.) I find this trade off acceptable, however. I'm guessing, as do you. So, as humorous as you may find this example, it again makes the point that everyday choice often times requires trades of risk vs. reward.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

So, as humorous as you may find this example, it again makes the point that everyday choice often times requires trades of risk vs. reward.

And again, what exactly is the "reward?" I find no difference in mobility wearing one or not wearing one. At the HS level and up, I'm putting one in.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

The point of the car example was less one comparability with a shot to one's gonads and more one of illustration about risk-reward trade offs; after all life is full of trade offs we all make every day.

Anyway, while maybe not more painful, a line drive to one's carotid artery could have more dire consequences, ie death. I choose not to wear a mask and a throat guard while I work the bases for lots of reasons you may or may not find humorous, but I risk death. (A man was killed recently at Lynchburg College in Virginia, when a batted ball struck him in the neck.) I find this trade off acceptable, however. I'm guessing, as do you. So, as humorous as you may find this example, it again makes the point that everyday choice often times requires trades of risk vs. reward.

Sorry to ride you, Tony.

I realize that there are other shots that could kill you or knock you cold, but they are all less painful than a split jewel.

Anyway, I cruise the L.A. freeways at between 75 and 80 m.p.h. every single day. I have taken street bikes up to 125 m.p.h. on the coast highway or the canyons and have woven through cars at 90 m.p.h. on freeways. And I have done performance driving in commercials. I absolutely love racing and driving the hell out of a good car. It's a riskier thing than going the limit, but I weigh it and do it.

I would still never go onto a baseball field to perform any function whatsoever without a cup. There is no measurable reward.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Of course it makes sense ... to you.

There is virtually nothing that can happen to us on a baseball field that is more painful than a jewel shot. A dull thud to the chest and the resultant soreness to the general chest area due to an inadequate soft shell is not even in the same area code as a jewel shot.

Another example could be the use of a hockey style mask. A standard mask as well as a hockey mask offer the same level of protection for a shot to the face. The hockey mask also protects the top, sides, and back of the head while the standard mask does not. Many people do not use the hockey mask even though the protection to the top, sides, and back of the head is far superior. For one reason or another many people prefer the standard mask. Parts of the head are left unprotected but the chances of getting hit in those areas are so low that many people don't feel the need to protect them.

It is the same thing with wearing a cup. For one reason or another many people don't like wearing one. They understand that the odds of them getting hit in the cup are so low that they don't feel the need to wear it.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Another example could be the use of a hockey style mask. A standard mask as well as a hockey mask offer the same level of protection for a shot to the face. The hockey mask also protects the top, sides, and back of the head while the standard mask does not. Many people do not use the hockey mask even though the protection to the top, sides, and back of the head is far superior. For one reason or another many people prefer the standard mask. Parts of the head are left unprotected but the chances of getting hit in those areas are so low that many people don't feel the need to protect them.

It is the same thing with wearing a cup. For one reason or another many people don't like wearing one. They understand that the odds of them getting hit in the cup are so low that they don't feel the need to wear it.

The issue is SOLELY about the degree of pain and damage a shot to the jewels causes. The odds of getting hit are irrelevant. If you get hit, it is intolerable, and can be horrifically injurious. If it were ankle or shin protection we were discussing, then that risk/reward thing and odds of getting hit would be relevant. There is ZERO tolerance to a jewel shot. So odds on getting hit are irrelevant.

The exit speed of a 90 m.p.h. fastball struck by a big slugger with a metal bat can reach 115 m.p.h. even at the H.S. level. I would say that a foot or head can move in time to avoid being struck. The center of one's body cannot.