Baseball Articles

It's not exactly as prestigious as the one in Cooperstown, but Bob Uecker is getting ready for induction into another Hall of Fame -- the WWE version. [brewersbar]

As noted in Anthony Witrado's notes from Friday, the announcement of Uecker's inclusion in the WWE's Class of 2010 is expected in the next few days.  If the current pattern holds, we can probably expect the official announcement during Monday night's episode of "Raw," as previous inductees this year -- Antonio Inoki, "The Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase, "Mad Dog" Vachon, and Wendi Richter -- had video packages announcing their induction during the show.

If you're wondering what Ueck has to do with pro wrestling, he served as the "master of ceremonies" at WrestleMania III (where Hulk Hogan famously fought Andre the Giant) and WrestleMania IV.  According to Witrado, Vince McMahon has been trying to get Uecker involved in the Hall of Fame ceremonies -- traditionally held on the eve of WrestleMania -- but the Brewers' schedule has always kept it from happening.

One of the more memorable WrestleMania moments involving Ueck: Andre choking him out following an interview.

Knowing Uecker, the induction speech should be good. [brewersbar2]

The following letter from Sporting News president Jeff Price just landed in my inbox: [fantasyhurler]

Dear Valued Fantasy Games Player,

Due to a shift in our core business strategy, SportingNews.com will no longer offer new fantasy games going forward (excluding Strat-O-Matic). The fantasy industry is changing, and we feel it's best to devote our resources to providing the best fantasy content and advice on the internet, and beyond. We believe SportingNews.com's fantasy content, tools and advice are already best in class, and over the next few months, we will completely redesign the Fantasy Source section of our site to deliver a new and improved user experience. With this shift in strategy, we will dedicate our entire fantasy staff to building Fantasy Source into the number one destination for fantasy information, accessible via internet, mobile devices, and other new technologies.

The SportingNews.com fantasy staff shares and understands the disappointment that comes with this decision. We realize that the Sporting News community of fantasy players is extremely competitive and appreciate that many of our members have been asking about our fantasy baseball games and delaying their leagues, waiting for our launch. In an effort to show our appreciation to you, our loyal customer, we have partnered with CBSSports.com to allow you to create a Baseball Commissioner League, at a 50% discount, during the 2010 season. Simply click here to sign up. You must use this link to receive your discounted league, a $89.99 value.

Please be assured that this decision was not taken lightly and we truly believe this is the beginning of great things for us in the fantasy content environment. If you haven't already, we hope you will check out Fantasy Source. We will continue to provide fantasy players with the same great content and add many new and improved features.

Finally, for those of you with outstanding site credits, we are in the process of setting up a way for you to convert those into other Sporting News products or cash. We will be contacting you shortly. If you have any questions or concerns, you can reach us at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Sincerely,
Jeff Price
President/Publisher

So there you have it. The Sporting News will continue to provide fantasy news and advice but will no longer run their own game. You might not realize it, as they've been overshadowed by Yahoo, ESPN and CBS in recent years, but SportingNews.com has been offering fantasy services for a long time. In fact, when I first started playing fantasy baseball and football over the Internet back at start of the 2000s, my friends and I ran our leagues through a website called Smallworld, which was then purchased and incorporated into Sporting News. We played there for a year or two before jumping to Yahoo, which had begun to develop a more advanced fantasy interface. I've been predominantly a Yahoo player ever since, but I look back fondly on those early Smallworld/Sporting News days. [fantasyhurler2]

Very interesting times in White Sox camp right now where it looks like manager Ozzie Guillen and general manager Kenny Williams aren't on the best of terms. This conflict stems from a supposed website that Guillen was planning on launching this spring. From what Ozzie says it seems like Kenny drew the line and said that the website wasn't going to be okay. [talkingchicagobaseball]

Of course we know that Ozzie and Kenny had some words over Ozzie's twitter account last week, and now this website deal. Joe Cowley has the story over at the Sun-Times. These are the imporant parts

Considering the organization has approved an MLB Network reality show to film a behind-the-scenes show that will begin airing in July, as well as allowing Guillen to tweet 'til his heart's content - as long as it's not White Sox business - it would seem strange that they drew the line in the sand with an Ozzie Guillen website.

click read more to continue reading Plus this text from Kenny which really illustrates how angry he seems to be about this whole thing.

"Don't ask me another question about Twitter, websites, blog, radio shows, non of that [bleep],'' Williams said in a text. "All I care about is players playing, coaches coaching and managers managing. If they do that and do it well, we got no problems, but if they don't ... ''

Clearly there is something brewing here. First of all it isn't much of a secret that Kenny and Ozzie didn't see eye to eye on the DH situation. Kenny made it very clear between the Jim Thome situation and other interviews that the DH thing is Ozzie's idea and the Ozzie is the one who wants this rotating DH idea.

Joe Cowley was just on 670 the Score and talked about how there is an obvious tension around the White Sox these days and that Kenny and Ozzie aren't exactly on the same page on a number of things.

More to come as more information comes in.

Some more general thoughts that I've picked up here: First of all Ozzie and Kenny are two guys who have created a solid baseball team nearly every season they've worked together. They are also two guys with huge egos. Ozzie is a very public person, Kenny is a very private person. The fact that they agreed to do a reality show was shocking at the time, but that reality show will be very interesting if the White Sox struggle to start the season.

Winning baseball games is still the magic cure for any battle, and if the White Sox play good baseball I doubt we hear about this too much. If they stumble out of the block, or if the DH situation becomes a problem then this thing could get really big. It is a situation to certainly keep your eye on. [talkingchicagobaseball2]

Whether it is a referee in football, a linesman in hockey or an umpire in baseball, all sports have some sort of judge and jury. These individuals are in charge of making decisions that affect how the game is played out. The purpose of these "judges and juries" is to get the call right. [guysgirl]

Get the call wrong and it could majorly affect who wins or even determine the outcome of the game.

So why has baseball been so slow to adopt tools to help the umpires make the right call?

Over years of debate and other major sports leagues adopting instant replay, baseball finally succumbed the pressure of the fans and media by allowing for instant replay on home run calls only.

When the surprising change was announced, the media and fans were already shouting for more instant replay analysis than just home runs. And why the heck not?

Hit the jump to continue reading on why baseball should implement instant replay.....

Baseball has been filled with these so called "traditionalists" for years that immediately try to squash any part of the game that present day fans would want to alter slightly.

What the traditionalists have to understand is that no one is calling for a little red baseball challenge flag to thrown on the field or for a ruling to be handed over to a panel of judges holding white cards that say "fair or foul".

Fans merely want baseball to take advantage of the multitude of views we have at home.

Think about it, what would happen if instant replay in baseball was expanded to the following scenarios:

Fair or Foul
Out or Safe
Held on the ball or dropped it
Hit batter?

Would the world suddenly start raining fire balls and apocalypse start? Maybe not, but it certainly would cut down on the petty and meaningless "I'm going to talk slightly louder really close to your face so maybe you change your mind about the horrible call you just made".

"But wouldn't instant replay make the game even longer than what it is?" A lot of the time these arguments last double, even triple the amount of time it would take to look a couple camera angles for 30 seconds. How much work does it take to place league official in a video booth who can quickly overrule an obvious mistake?

It goes without saying that umpires are truly great at what they do. They can spot 98% of plays and call them correctly. With that being said, its not 100% and when you're a fan on the bad side of the call, it hurts. Especially when that call can decide how a game end or series plays out ala Don Denkinger.

Really, who wants another situation like this to happen?

Instead of treating replay as "robot that will eventually take an umpire's jobs in baseball", traditionalists and the media should treat replay as an aid.

If a play occurs that is questionable, the coach should be able to go over to umpire and ask for a review at least once per nine innings and any questionable call in extra innings should automatically be reviewed. This would keep the traditional relationship with the umpire and coach respectable, with the ultimate goal of giving the umpires a chance to utilize the same technology we have at home.

With HD TVs becoming the standard in American households, missed calls will only be magnified and the shouts for expanded replay will become louder.

Most fans can agree that a loss based on play is easier to swallow than a loss based off a bad call. If utilized properly, instant replay in baseball should be implemented ASAP as an aid to the umpires to make sure every call, is the right call.

[guysgirl2]

Any time Bud Selig has something to do with anything it is bound to be stupid. He is going to be gone pretty soon, and it seems like he wants to leave us with one last bad thing before his reign of stupid is over. Selig and his "special committee for on-field matters" have begun investigating a MLB realignment strategy that you have to see to believe. [talkingchicagobaseball]

The proposal involves teams no longer being tied down to divisions, meaning they can change each season based on a number of factors. Those factors include geography, payroll, and interest in competing. That's right interest in competing. Basically if a team like the Royals has no interest in actually winning games in a given season they can elect to move to the AL East where extra games against the Red Sox and Yankees would boost income while losing just as many games.

The article I linked to there uses the Indians as the example of doing the same thing. They know they aren't winning anything this season, why not go to a division with more profitable and popular opponents. On the other side (again this example comes from the article) a team like the Rays can leave the AL East and dominate the AL Central.

click read more to continue reading Do I really need to explain how stupid this idea is? While I don't find myself particularly attached to the way the divisions are currently aligned, I really don't think we need to change them each season based on who cares to win or not. Not to mention I'm not sold on the idea working at all in the National League.

The main draw of the NL Central (excuse me for the Cubs-centric world I live in) is the Cubs and to a lesser extent the Cardinals. Just like the Red Sox and Yankees fans fill up opposing stadiums, the Cubs do the same. Would any Central team want to give that up? Without a Central team wanting to move the NL could never change, since a move of more than 2 time zones wouldn't be allowed (this whole thing just sounds dumb when I type it).

So basically the NL would never change, unless I'm missing something. Meanwhile the AL would become a 5 or 6 team league that is constantly breaking the wins record. The Red Sox and Yankees would get to face a division of really bad teams each season, meaning their win totals would be well north of 100. Meanwhile the West and Central would become a cluster of mediocrity.

How about this Bud- if realignment is really that imporant to you then find a better way of doing it. Don't let teams decide if they plan on tanking a season, its basically allowing them to spit in the faces of their fans. Nothing like dropping $5000 on season tickets to watch the Royals or Indians lost 115 games on purpose. [talkingchicagobaseball2]

Stephen Strasburg made his long awaited debut for the Washington Nationals this afternoon in Viera. The young right-handed starter hurled two innings, allowed two softly-hit singles, and struck out two batters with a total of 27 pitches on the day. He flashed a high 90's fastball and a devastating curve, and a lot of other things happened which you can read about in many other blogs and reports. So instead of writing your typical 'Stephen Strasburg Debut' post, I'm going to break down what today meant for me, a Nats fan. [thenatsblog]

Being a Nationals fan has always been about believing despite your own reasonible sensabilities. D.C. is a city deeply intrenched in logic, realism, and yes, synicism, and being a Natinoals fan means that you are going to sniff out the crap that a certain former GM fed you, and that you're going to have to try and be ok with it. Because despite our minds telling us that we should not put up with the garbage that has been put on the field in front of us, our hearts know all too well what it is like to have no baseball at all. Therefor, our choice is simple, bad baseball over no baseball.

Through the years a team has been patched together out of bad situations. The Montreal Expos were in a bad situation when Major League Baseball took them over, and Major League Baseball was in a jam when they awarded the Expos to the D.C. Area. Since 2005 Nationals teams have been built upon with a foundation of players that either never had done what they were supposed to, or once did but no longer could. Being a Nationals fan was about trying to find the optimism when Pedro Astacio threw a compelte game in under 100 pitches, or trying to figure out how Chad Cordero ever got anybody out.

Sure, there were exciting times. Alfonso Soriano went 40-40 in front of a homely RFK crowd in 2006. Ryan Zimmerman hit a walk-off home run in the first-ever game at Nationals Park, and of course he had that 30-game hit streak last season. But through the exciting deversions there were few events as anticipated and as promising as todays debut for Strasburg.

You see, Strasburg represents a new horizon that for once may not be spurred from our own delusions. Strasburg's fastball is tangible, his speed is something that few have ever possessed and for once that raw talent, that physical superiority is in a Nationals uniform. That curveball we saw today, which left Tigers batters in the dust, is something you simply can't learn. It comes form a god-given talent to have master control and spin on the ball like number 37 displayed today.

Strasburg's start today meant that for the first time, arguably ever, the Nationals have something in their franchise that other teams covet. It means that we have someone who is a game changer, and hopefully a franchise changer. Certainly it's a long way between where Strasburg is now, and where he would have to go for that to be true. But for once, I feel like my hopes may finally be based in truth. [thenatsblog2]

They are going to wait two or three weeks and see if he can pitch through it, but this one has "Tommy John" surgery written all over it. Even if he can pitch he couldn't possibly be as effective or as durable.

When we last looked at this situation we said that in the end, the success or failure of the 2010 Twins would come down to Joe Nathan.  As you recall, Nathan has been every bit the equal of Mariano Rivera the past few years in the regular season while proving to be the ultimate choke artist in the post season "making Armando Benitez look clutch."

The Twins have a fantastic front office, one that is the envy of the league. If there is a trade to be made or a player on their roster to take the role, you can be sure they will make the right move.

When asked who will take over, manager Ron Gardenhire was quoted as saying the following.

"We got all kinds of arms out there. What, we got 27, 28 guys with arms, so we'll find someone."

My guess is that of no moves are made before opening day that Jon Rauch will grab the spot. The Twins are built to play close games so whoever it is, one guy or a by committee approach, there will be plenty of chances.

If they do make the playoffs almost anything they get from that position will be better than what Nathan has given them though.

Nathan has pitched in 7 post season games. In those 7 post season games he's pitched 7.1 innings, given up 10 Hits, 7 walks and 7 runs. He only gave up 16 runs all of last regular season and that was over 70 games!

As the saying goes though, "one thing at a time", and they can worry about playoff performance if they get into the playoffs. This will certainly throw a kink into their regular season plans.

I had previously picked the Twins to win the division, now I'm not so sure. What a shame, a new stadium, prospects of locking Joe Mauer up for the ages.... And now this. - Brian James

Brian is an independent sports journalist. Brian has been covering major professional sports for over 25 years. [athbaseball2]

When David Wright donned the "new batting helmet" late last season - and was mocked mercilessly by just about everyone - I thought it would be a good idea to go back through some old magazines and newspapers and find how people reacted to the introduction to the original helmet. I was certain that I could find ballplayers and writers saying the same thing then that ballplayers were saying now about the Wright helmet. I never wrote that piece, though, because I ran into a problem: there was never really a big, league-wide rollout of batting helmets to mark the new era. In fact, the answer to the question "who was the first baseball player to wear a batting helmet?" is pretty nebulous.

I put the notes to the side and told myself that I would come back to it, but I never did. But then I found myself drawn back to Paul Lukas' wonderful blog, Uniwatch, which I, for some reason, had strayed away from recently. Well, for those who don't know, Paul has had a keen interest in the development of the batting helmet (and the batting helmet w/earflaps) for a while. Every now and then he posts an interesting photo or whatnot that he or a reader has stumbled across, and it gets us all just a tad bit closer to solving the whole puzzle. Last week, he unveiled another piece to the puzzle: a reader had recently stumbled across the Popular Science archives and found this image from the November 1940 issue. Paul loved it, and was able to determine that the helmet shown there was probably the same one that Jackie Hayes had worn in the summer of 1940.

Well, the image looked incredibly familiar to me, so I pulled up my notes from last fall. I had found the same image in Popular Science too, but in the October 1940 issue. I emailed that photo, and many more that I found in that initial research phase to Paul, and, with his encouragement, I decided to investigate the issue some more. I spent some more time in the Google News and Proquest archives this weekend, and I even went to the library to pull up some books. I can't say that I've solved the puzzle, but I do feel like I connected and filled in a lot of areas that were incomplete or hanging loose. Keep reading for a timeline on the invention and evolution of the batting helmet in baseball.

(Click "Read More" to continue reading. Be warned, it's quite long.)

1905
Frank P. Mogridge, of Pennsylvania, is granted Patent No. 780,899 for a "Head Protector". It is a "goofy-looking device that resembled a boxing glove wrapped around the batter's head" (Dan Gutman, Banana Bats and Ding-Dong Balls). It was marketed by the A.J. Reach Company as the "Reach Pneumatic Head Protector for Batters." It was "pneumatic" in that the player had to blow it up like a floatie for it to work.

1907
Future Hall of Famer Roger Bresnahan, inventor of the catcher's shin guards and other devices, is beaned in the head mid-summer. In the July 11, 1907, edition of the Washington Post, it is announced that he will wear the Mogridge device when he returns to play. Here's how the Post describes it:

"It is a rubber affair which completely protects his head and will save him in the future from such blows as put him to sleep in Cincinnati recently when he stopped one of Andy Coakley's fast inshoots with his left temple and was unconscious for hours.

If Bresnahan continues his policy of protecting himself against injury with all sort of devices it will require a small express wagon to drag his paraphanelia to and from the grounds before and after each game. Incidentally a head gear will make it possible for him to stand up against any kind of pitching and no doubt there will be more kicks from the opposing teams but there is no rule preventing Bresnahan or any one else from using these things."

The July 30, 1907, Atlanta Constitution edition mentions that Bresnahan "has adopted the use of an ear muff to protect the side of his head turned to the pitcher when batting." I could not find any photos of Bresnahan wearing the device. He did not seem to wear it for long, though.

1920
Ray Chapman is hit in the head and killed by a ball pitched by Yankees pitcher Carl Mays. This shocks the baseball world but, though there are some calls to fix the problem somehow (H.C. Hamilton, in the August 25, 1920, edition of the San Antonio Evening News, calls for "experts to get busy on a new protector"), it doesn't change anything.

In the intervening years between Bresnahan and Chapman, there were some attempts at head protection. In Peter Morris' incredibly thorough, well-written, and insightfully sourced A Game of Inches, he mentions a few of them: Freddie Parent had some sort of head protector in 1908; Frank Chance wore some headgear in 1913, "though it was little more than a sponge wrapped in a bandage"; Utica pitcher Joe Bosk wore headgear with a pad on one side in 1913 after getting beaned in the head in 1911; Phillies manager Pat Moran introduced cork-cushioned caps to his players in early 1917, but it's unclear if they were worn in games. Morris' book also mentions that the Indians experimented with leather helmets in the spring of 1921 as a result of Chapman's death, though I couldn't find anything regarding that.

1937
On May 25, 1937, Hall of Fame catcher Mickey Cochrane, then the player-manager of the Detroit Tigers, is hit in the head by a pitch from the Yankees' Bump Hadley. The pitch fractures his skull in three parts, ending his career. Though he is not killed, this acts as another wake-up call to baseball, and some action is actually taken this time. Cochrane is asked a month later if he thinks batters should be forced to wear helmets. "Absolutely," he says. "A thrown ball even in the hands of a careful, sporting pitcher can perform weird trips...and a hitter is liable to be struck at any time."

Within the week, Connie Mack, manager of the Philadelphia Athletics, experiments with polo helmets (see article). On June 1, 1937, Athletics and Indians players test the helmets in batting practice. There is no evidence that they actually wore the helmets in the game, though. (photo shown taken from Popular Science; also, see article)

That same week, the Des Moines Demons of the Western League experiment with polo helmets in a game. They don't seem to take.

Negro Leaguer Willie Wells is often cited as the first player to wear a modern helmet in a game. The date is usually given as sometime in 1942 (I saw it listed as that in a few places). According to Morris' book, though, researcher Larry Lester was able to find an account of the event in the August 26, 1937, edition of the New York Age. I couldn't get access to those archives, so I can't say for sure, but the rest of the research in Morris' book checks out, so I'm inclined to believe it. The helmet that he wore that day was a modified construction worker's hard hat. (I suspect a photo of this hat will be Uniwatch's next holy grail).

1939
The August and September issues of Popular Science feature photos of Lamar Newsome wearing a head protector that is placed under the cap.

The International League adopts the "Safety Cap or helmet" as official equipment. Outfielder Buster Mills of Newark became the first player in the league to use the light, practical helmet.

1940
This is where the timeline gets a little cluttered and tough to decipher. I'll do my best...

Brooklyn's Pee Wee Reese and Joe Medwick are both victims of dangerous beanings, as is the Giants' Billy Jurges. In response to this, the National League meets at the all-star break to discuss helmets. In this June 30, 1940, article of the Pittsburgh Press, president Ford Frick is shown holding a new helmet that he had designed and that he hoped to have the league mandate (other photos available in the article):

"I've been doping out ways to prevent this, rectify that. But the best solution by far to the problem I think, lies with the helmet.

If we could call a league meeting and unanimously pass a measure requiring every batter to wear protection at the plate we would wipe out hospital cases and head injuries in short order."

The Frick helmet starts showing up elsewhere. This is the helmet that Uniwatch linked to last week from Popular Science, and that I found in a different issue of the same magazine. It's also the helmet that Jackie Hayes is wearing in this image dated 8/23/40 that Uniwatch found last month. You can see Hayes and the helmet in action in this photo from the August 23, 1940, edition of the New York Times (I apologize for the graininess, but there's not much you can do with newspaper archives). Cardinal Terry Moore models it in this photo from the July 15, 1940, edition of the Kingsport Times.

In a 1955 article in Baseball Digest, Pee Wee Reese claims that he was the first player to wear a batting helmet, and that he did so in 1940 after getting beaned by Jake Mooty. I didn't see any evidence of this happening in 1940 (though I admit that I didn't exactly research this thread as much as others), though 1941 is a different story.

1941
This a busy year for the helmet. On February 5, 1941, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the National League had adopted a helmet for all clubs to try out in spring training. The helmet was designed by Dr. George Bennett of Johns Hopkins Hospital. The Ottawa Citizen claims that Ford Frick had a hand in the design as well. It's my assumption that this is the same helmet Frick introduced the year before. Dodgers' president Larry MacPhail is the only one to say that he would make his players use it.

MacPhail keeps his promise - sort of. On March 8, 1941, the Dodgers announced that their players would be wearing a new helmet designed by Dr. Bennett and one Dr. Walter Dandy. The Frick helmets would stay in camp, but the players would use a more lightweight helmet. It wasn't exactly the modern day helmet, though:

"Zippered pockets are cut in each side of a regulation baseball cap. Into one of these pockets, on the side he faces the pitcher, the batter will slip a plastic plate which is about a quarter inch thick and little more than an ounce in weight. The plate, about the width and length of a man's hand, covers the vulnerable area from the temple to about an inch behind the ear."

A good picture of the device can be found in the June 1941 issue of Popular Science

The Dodgers weren't the only team wearing these new helmets this year. On April 26, 1941, the Washington Senators joined the Dodgers as teams with protective helmets. The Senators' helmets were sewn shut, though, unlike the Dodgers. On June 6, the Giants also began wearing protective caps. Their protective liners were made of plastic and sewn shut. By June 24, the Cubs were also among the helmeted, which may have proven beneficial. That day, Chicago outfielder Hank Leiber was struck in the head. The New York Times story from the day claims that the helmet saved him from serious injury; the Chicago Tribune, however, claimed that it hit him in a spot "not protected by the new armored cap." On August 20, 1941, St. Louis' Terry Moore (the same one pictured above) is hit in the head, behind the left ear. The New York Times says that "Moore was not wearing the protective helmet with which the Cardinals are equipped. Fellow-players said that Terry did not wear the helmet except in exhibition games." The helmets were obviously making their way around the league by that time.

The May 20, 1941, edition of the St. Petersburg Times claims that the "'41 baseball season marked by war, introduction of helmet". When asked about "modern day" baseball on March 26, 1941, Connie Mack proves again to be a fan of the helmet: "The man who invents a helmet that insures absolute protection will make a fortune... Some players may feel now it would reflect on their gameness to wear one but the time is coming when they will be standard equipment."

1953
In 1950, Branch Rickey left the Dodgers and became general manager of the Pirates. While GM there, he became involved with the American Baseball Cap, Inc. The company, under direction of Charlie Muse, worked with Cleveland engineers Ed Crick and Ralph Davia to design a useful, light-weight batting helmet. Some reports say that, in 1952, Rickey introduced this cap to baseball, citing names like Ralph Kiner and Phil Rizzuto as early adopters. The earliest evidence I can find of the Pirates wearing, however, is from the May 16, 1953, edition of the Times-News of Hendersonville, NC.

(Interestingly enough, a December 6, 1955, article in the Pittsburgh Press, mentions that though "Kiner owns stock in the plastic helmet factory that services the Pirates ... he never wore one in a game.")

On May 5, 1953, the Ottawa Citizen mentions that "major league clubs are becoming quite interested in a new type of plastic protective cap which has been put on the market recently." On July 20, 1953, Brooklyn outfielder Carl Furillo is hit in the head by a pitched ball. The Times-News says that it "struck the top of his protective helmet."

1954
On August 1, 1954, Milwaukee Braves first-baseman Joe Adcock was beaned in the head by Clem Labine in the fourth inning of a game at Ebbets Field. Adcock had hit four home runs the day before, and was brushed back in the third inning. He was carried off the field on a stretcher, but was not seriously injured. The Chicago Tribune reports that his "metal head protector" that "he wore under his cap" took all the damage; the dent in it was visible. The New York Times, however, describes it as a "plastic helmet".

In the wake of the beaning, the Associated Press ran a story detailing the use of "plastic protective helmets" around the league which proved to be a wealth of information. The Milwaukee Journal carried the story on August 3, 1954:

"Plastic protective helmets, such as that which saved Milwaukee Joe Adcock from serious injury Sunday, are worn by a large majority of major league batters.
...
The protective helmet was the personal brainchild of Branch Rickey, now general manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates, who ordered them as standard equipment for his team at spring training in Havana in 1952.

The St. Louis Cardinals followed suit. The rule is so strictly enforced with the Cards that Sal Yvars was fined $25 by the club for failure to wear a helmet in an exhibition game this spring.

Other clubs which make the headgear more or less mandatory are the Cincinnati Reds, Philadelphia Phillies, New York Giants and Chicago Cubs in the National League and the Cleveland Indians and Chicago White Sox in the American League.

There are two types of protective gear. One is the plastic skull cap, such as worn by Adcock and popularized by Rickey. The other is the plastic band. This is the type used by the Giants and Indians. The band offers protection against a ball landing around the temples and other vital spots, but doesn't ward off a shot at the top of the head.

Shortstop Phil Rizzuto is the only member of the New York Yankees who wears a helmet. Three members of the Washington Senators use different kind of headgear. Eddie Yost wears temple protectors, Mickey Vernon has a band which goes all around his head, and Joe Tipton uses the full helmet.

A half dozen or so members of the Baltimore Orioles wear the helmets, as do about the same number of the Boston Red Sox."

The version of the article appearing in the New York Times that day is edited slightly different, and mentions Enos Slaughter as joining Rizzuto as helmet-wearing members of the Yankees.

1956
On December 5, 1955, the National League passed a rule requiring all players to wear protective headgear. The rule went into effect for the 1956 season.

In the early-1950s, the Little League governing board made it mandatory for all children to wear helmets during Little League games. The helmet they used protected both ears, but was not the traditional helmet that we're used to today. In May 1956, shortly after being traded from Cleveland to Chicago, Larry Doby wore a Little League-style helmet in a game at Detroit. Uniwatch has a fantastic photo of it here, and Baseball Digest talks about it briefly here. He was still wearing it in late-May and early-June (includes another photo).

1958
On March 26, 1958, the Little League governing board announced a "new and more comprehensive helmet for Little League batters and base runners" to be used around the country. The new helmet was double-earflapped and looked very much like what we're used to seeing today. The new helmets were rated to withstand balls travelling upwards of 120 mph. At the unveiling, a demonstration was performed, showing that "a modern major league captype helmet, made of a different type of plastic" would crack on a 95 mph pitch. In the picture to the right, note the similarities to the cap in his hand and the cap Doby was wearing in 1956.

Some other facts found in the March 27, 1958, article in the Chicago Tribune:

"Present Little League helmets, which still will be permitted but which - it is hoped - will be supplanted by the new and safer one, are of two types: The cap-helmet used in the big leagues and a wrap-around leather helmet which protects the temples and back of the head but not the top.

The Little League, according to Mickey McConnell, director of training, pioneered the use of helmets in 1949 and since that time has had only about 100 concussions yearly even tho some half-million youngsters play each season."

On March 11, 1958, the American League passed a rule requiring protective headgear for all players. This created a bit of a controversy, when it looked like Ted Williams might challenge the rule on the field of play. He obeyed the rule, however.

1960
On May 2, 1960, Jim Lemon of the Washington Senators wore the new Little League helmet in a major league baseball game. He was the first player to try these new helmets in the big leagues. As the Milwaukee Journal described it, "The helmet has flaps that cover the ears and protect a larger area of the head than the standard plastic helmets. Other players tried out the helmet in batting practice but said it obscured their vision slightly."

Cleveland outfielder Jim Piersall wore the Little League helmet in a game a month later. On June 5, 1960, Piersall hit a home run off Detroit pitcher Pete Burnside. Tigers players felt that he showboated after the dinger (he stopped at third, "doffed his cap and shouted at the Detroit dugout"). When he stepped up to bat two innings later, he was wearing the Little League helmet. Burnside threw three pitches up and in before finally being warned by the umpire. (Another photo can be seen here)

1961
On July 23, 1961, Minnesota catcher Earl Battey is beaned in the face, fracturing his cheek. He would return to the lineup about 10 days later wearing a makeshift ear-flap. He was wearing the earflap on August 11, when he hits two home runs in the game. He says that, despite hitting the two homers, the flap makes it hard for him to see. On September 5, this photo of his earflap (from Uniwatch) is run in various newspapers. One has to wonder why he chose the makeshift route over the Little League helmet already available.

That's about all I can give you right now. The earflapped helmet gradually came into use in the 1960s. In 1971, helmets became mandatory in baseball (I guess as opposed to just "protective headgear") and, in 1974, flapped helmets became mandatory. Reading through all of these newspaper articles and magazine retrospectives this weekend, I was struck by two things: first, how frequent and dangerous these beanballs to the head were in the '30s and '40s; second, how many players are either credited with, or credit themselves with, being the first person to wear a helmet in a game. Pee Wee Reese, Jackie Hayes and Jim Piersall are just a few of players who clearly were not the first to wear helmets in a game, but who seem to remember differently.

One question that goes through your head when you read all of this is "why were players so opposed to helmets when they were first introduced?" Sure, there was the whole 'he looks like a pansy and/or an idiot'-mentality among the players, but I think that would have disappeared quickly. The real reason helmets took so long to catch on is best described by Dan Gutman in his wonderful book, Banana Bats and Ding-Dong Balls:

"Baseball didn't exactly rush to introduce head protection, but part of the problem was that a successful batting helmet required a material that was very strong but also very light. The first helmets made specifically for baseball were made from plaster poured over cloth baseball caps.

Just before World War II, synthetic plastics such as polystyrene and polyethylene were developed. They could be molded into any shape, and they were light, rigid, and tough."

I know there are still gaping holes in this timeline and I don't doubt that I may have left a mistake or two in here. If you see anything like that, let me know. In the meantime, though, I hope you find this history of the batting helmet - and it's less-than-specific answer to the question "who was the first baseball player to wear a batting helmet in a game?" - interesting and informative. Who knew it could be so thick and convoluted? [wezenball2]

Today's Debaters are:

Slanch, The Slanch Report

Bill Parker, The Daily Something

Today's Topic is: Should Joe Mauer be moved from behind home plate?

Joe Mauer SHOULD be moved from behind home plate

By Slanch, The Slanch Report - Presenting the best in off-beat sports news, mainstream sports idiocy, the choicest Doppelgangers and always plenty of baseball. Oh and hot chicks, lots of hot chicks.

There is no doubt that Joe Mauer is the best catcher in the American League, but his highest value, the reason the Minnesota Twins want to make a long-term commitment to him, is for his ability at the plate, not behind it.

In the five full years he's spent in the majors, Mauer has missed a total of 146 games. As the team looks to invest in Mauer for the next decade they want to ensure they get the most out of him. At his current pace, missing one out of every 5 seasons is not a great start. Looking forward, as Mauer gets older he isn't likely to become MORE durable, particularly in such a taxing position like catcher. That's not to suggest that Mauer is a bad catcher, he is in fact a better than average catcher. The two Gold Gloves he's won in successive years are a bit deceiving though, they've been gained more thanks to his bat than his glove-work.

Last season Mauer experienced his long-awaited power breakout, he also missed the first month of the season and only tallied 109 games behind the plate, DHing another 28 games -- a career high. How are the Twins best served by having their best player missing an AVERAGE of 30 games a season? That's nearly 120 potential ABs that they are needlessly losing out on.

Having an excellent hitting catcher is an awesome luxury, having a young hitting machine is an even greater one.

In 1992, after 3 years of 100+ games played at catcher in the majors, Craig Biggio switched full-time to playing second base. Already having won a Silver Slugger and been an All Star as a catcher, Biggio made the switch. Over the next 8 seasons he averaged 152 games a season (8 games more) and an OPS+ of 130; that's really really good. Craig Biggio was one of the very good players in the league during his day. Mauer is one of the very best, certainly markedly better than Biggio, one whose talent and ability puts him in the rare stratosphere of one-name superstars, along with the likes of Albert, Hanley and Endy.

Just kidding -- making sure you're paying attention.

Not about Mauer's skills though, he has the chance to produce Ichiro-like numbers with legit power too. That kind of potential can't be lost because he was hurt playing in the field. Switching Mauer to a less physically taxing position will allow him a minimum of 10 more games per season but even more importantly, less strenuous games. Instead of coming to the plate with his legs throbbing from thousands of squats and his hands stinging from a foul tip in the last frame, Mauer will be able to concentrate just on his at-bat and that can only help him concentrate more and hit better.

Then where does he move? First base is occupied through 2013 by Justin Morneau, and he's not about to move anywhere, so that's out. However, currently, the Twins are entering the season with Brendan Harris as their third baseman. Over the last three seasons Harris has played about 130 games, and put up OPS+ of 106, 94 and last year, 77. Essentially, his numbers equate to the average catcher in the AL.

With the way the Twins are set up now, Mauer replaces a normal productive third baseman's numbers and Harris plays the role of a "catcher" while manning third. If you're willing to make that concession already, as an organization, why not take the next step, let Mauer play third and reap the side benefits from him not having to get beat up day in and day out by such a brutal position. With less wear and tear on the body, it only stands to reason that Mauer will see an increase in his numbers at the plate.

A legit quarterback prospect -- he turned down Florida State for baseball -- Mauer is considered such a freak of athletic ability according to his teammates that he's become a verb. When told about how Mauer had recently bowled an effortless 265, Nick Punto told reporters, "That's so Mauer of him to do something like that." Presumably, after catching, the hot corner won't bother Mauer too much.

Of course, that's just assuming Mauer takes to the position, which even for a top athlete is difficult on the fly. Say he doesn't, that's fine, there's always left field, an even less taxing position that any reasonable athlete can manage. Mauer's bat is so good that so long as he isn't Ryan Braun-bad at third, his offensive numbers should outweigh any defensive inadequacies.

The smartest solution for the Twins is to have the MVP make the position switch official next season, allowing him an off season to start working on and preparing for a position change. Freed up from the pressures of catching, physically and mentally, Mauer should build on his already impressive numbers.

Staying at catcher will only lead to more injuries and longer stints on the disabled list as he ages. Catchers are like running backs, their peak shelf life isn't very long. For the Twins to make a gigantic investment in their star, they need to make sure that he is able to actually be on the field. The knee issues he's had don't just clear up and go away, they linger, they develop, they continue to cause havok; 6' 5" men aren't intended to play catcher. All that bending and crouching adds up and will directly lead to missed games and games where Mauer isn't close to his best shape. That's the toll of playing catcher.

Entering his age 27 season, where most hitters see their peak, the Twins want to have Joe on the field and in the batter's box as much as possible. Mauer's talent isn't just good, he's one of the top 3 position players in the game. No matter where he plays he's going to be far above average. Having a stud catcher is more than nice but keeping him on the field is far more valuable. With a position change, Mauer can prolong his career by a number of years and the team can see more games played per season -- everyone wins in that scenario.

Another factor to consider is that the Twins are moving to an out-door stadium this season, 81 games in beautiful downtown Minneapolis. April, May, September, October, those months are going to be absolutely brutal to the players on the field. Exposing Mauer to those kinds of elements, and asking him to play the most physical position on the field is just foolish. Let him play in the field as the pitcher's assistant or the short center fielder if need be, so long as he gets to hit.

There's a reason there hasn't been a catcher like Mauer before, players like him, with a precocious hitting ability like his, get taken off catcher long ago in the minors. Their bats are their tickets to the majors and franchises recognize that is much more valuable and durable not playing catcher.

After he switched positions, Biggio logged 2606 hits in 16 seasons, wouldn't you like to see Mauer do better than that. If he continues as a catcher, Mauer will finish his career with great numbers for a catcher, but there will always be that caveat. His numbers won't compare with other hitters because his career will be marred with time lost from injury, it's just a fact of playing catcher, your body breaks down. Too many foul balls off the mask, stumbles into dugouts chasing a pop out, collisions at home and of course, the catching a big league staffs worth of fastballs lead to the DL, it's unavoidable no matter how finely conditioned the athlete. For one who has already had injuries in the most vulnerable place for a catcher, it just gets worse.

Moving Mauer means many more Minnesota summers where he can lead the league in hitting and add to his Hall of Fame resume. Leaving him at catcher means his potential will never truly be reached, too many games will be lost to the position. Right now the Twins have a Ferrari throttling out of control in a pickup truck's position, let the performance car out in the open and let loose the beast.

Free Joe. Let him fly free. - Slanch, The Slanch Report

Joe Mauer SHOULD NOT be moved from behind Home plate

By Bill Parker, The Daily Something: The Daily Something is a general baseball blog (with a strong pro-Twins slant) that provides just that: something about baseball every day, or at least every weekday. It gets pretty heavily into the analytical and statistical side of the game, but the site also features plenty of commentary and analysis on the current season (or offseason), glimpses into baseball history, and miscellaneous nonsense.

You hear it a lot: Joe Mauer is too valuable to be kept behind the plate. His bat is just too good. You need him in the lineup every day.

Bad idea. Some day, maybe. Just not now, and very likely not anytime soon.

The reason that would be such a phenomenally terrible idea, or the biggest reason, is that Joe Mauer is so valuable in large part because he plays behind the plate. Moving him now might preserve his value in some sense, but there's no question that it would also destroy a big chunk of that value.

Let us count the ways...

A Good Catcher Is Hard to Find

One of the least understood aspects of baseball among most fans today, I think, is positional value. People generally acknowledge that a catcher or shortstop who can hit is more impressive than a first baseman who can hit; they just don't seem to understand how much of a difference the player's position makes (see, e.g., the 2006 AL MVP award).

Well, it's huge. In 2009, the average American League catcher hit .254/.316/.408. That's the worst OPS of any position except shortstop (it's five points ahead of SS); the batting average is 11 points lower and the OBP is 13 lower than any other position. NL catchers didn't have the benefit of Mauer himself, so they hit .255/.325/.385, the worst position in the league in all three categories.

A great hitter who can catch is a very, very valuable thing. Much more valuable than, say, a first baseman, where the average hitter in the 2009 AL hit .271/.351/.481. If you've got a great hitter who can play catcher, it's pretty easy to find a first baseman who can hit. If you put that great hitter at first base, it's a lot harder to then go out and find a catcher who can hit.

One way to understand this is through Tom Tango's position adjustments, one component of Wins Above Replacement. Under that system, each position is worth a certain number of runs per season, to reflect the difficulty of playing that position (as it relates to the difficulty of finding an adequate replacement at that position compared to others).

A player who catches for an entire season gets +12.5 runs under that system; a first baseman loses 12.5. Just by moving a guy from catcher to first base, without regard to how he fields or anything else, you've lost 25 runs right off the bat. Of course, if he's a butcher at C and/or a gold glover at 1B, that'll swing the pendulum back, but you're starting out down two and a half wins by playing him at first. He'd better be Keith Hernandez out there if that's going to make any sense for you.

And speaking of that...

Defense Is Important

Mauer, as everybody seems to recognize, is a good catcher. He might not be great, and might not deserve those Gold Gloves he's been winning, but he's more than competent back there.

So that's one thing you're losing by moving him, but more importantly, where are you going to move him to? First base? Third? Left Field? How do you know he can handle those positions, or how well? Quality of defense, at any position, is worth runs, and thus wins. It's not as simple as deciding you're going to move him and then moving him. Most catchers, even great ones and great athletes, are disasters at other positions. There are phenomenal athletes who are terrible defenders. There's just no reason to believe that Mauer could move to even first base and suddenly be an asset out there. (I'm going to assume for the rest of this post that the position is first base, since that's the easiest one to learn, but certainly don't take that to mean I think moving him to 3B or LF makes any more sense.)

So, not only are you sapping up to 25 runs from his value at point zero just by making the move away from catcher, but you're very likely taking him from a position he plays well to a position he will play poorly, or at least considerably less well. And that's bad.

His Bat Is Already In the Lineup Every Day!

One justification for moving Mauer (one used on this very site) is that catchers get fatigued and need to rest, and you need Mauer's bat in the lineup every day.

Well, let's not forget that the Twins can use the DH, okay? Mauer's injury caused him to miss the first 22 games of 2009. From there on out, for the team's final 140 games, Mauer played in 138 of them; 109 as a catcher, 28 as DH, one as a pinch hitter. It hurt his Wins Above Replacement total (DHes get dinged under that system even more than 1Bs do), but it was the perfect way to use him. And there's no reason he can't keep getting used that way.

It Will Never Be 2009 Again

Silly statement, but it's important to put Mauer's 2009 to one side for a bit. Mauer's 2009, of course, would be impeccable at any position - he'd be less valuable if he hadn't been a catcher, but he'd still have been awfully valuable.

As amazing as he is, though, it's highly unlikely that Mauer will ever hit .365, lead the league in all three slash categories, or hit 28 home runs again.

What if, for the next five (or ten) years, Mauer settles in to an average of the great work he's done over the last five? Per full season (660 plate appearances), that looks like this:

328/.410/.480, 34 2B, 3 3B, 15 HR, 92 R, 87 RBI, 136 OPS+.

Those are pretty numbers for anybody. Very, very good. But for a catcher, they're out of this world.

I personally believe that Mauer was the AL's true MVP not just last year, but in 2006 and 2008 as well. Catchers just don't hit like that (especially not good catchers). Only one catcher ever, Mike Piazza, has topped a 136 OPS+ for his career. Hall of Fame catcher Mickey Cochrane's best five year stretch was a 138 OPS+, as was Bill Dickey's. Yogi Berra's and Johnny Bench topped out at 136 for a five-year stretch, Gabby Hartnett 135, Carlton Fisk 131. If you're a catcher and can do for ten years what Joe Mauer has done for five, you're a Hall of Famer and one of the four or five best ever to play the position. That's all it takes.

As a first baseman, though? First basemen that have had approximately a 135 career OPS+ include Carlos Delgado (138), Dolph Camilli (136), Boog Powell (134), John Kruk (133), and Mo Vaughn (132). Good players all, but none of them was ever (for more than an isolated year or two) the kind of special superstar that Mauer is right now.

So if you think Mauer is going to hit just as he did in 2009 for the next several years, then Mauer the first baseman is going to be a special, special player (again, not as special as Mauer the catcher, but special). If you recognize that he might come back to earth a bit, then you need to acknowledge that you're taking an inner-circle-Hall-of-Fame talent and turning him into just a really good player.

But What About the Injury/Burnout Risk?

That's the big deal, of course. Catchers get hurt more than most. Catchers wear down over time and retire earlier than most (unless their nickname is "Pudge," apparently).

But with Mauer specifically, we have no idea when (or if) he'll break down or what his particular risk is of a truly damaging injury. If, as time goes by, it becomes clear that catching is taking its toll, or he suffers an injury that puts him at risk if he continues to catch, then by all means, start taking a look at a move.

Failing that, though, I'm willing to take the risk. Aside from all that stuff above, note that for right now, at least, he's not under contract. It's cold, I know, but what do the Twins care if Mauer's knees fail him five or six years down the line, if that's going to be the problem of the Yanks or Red Sox?

So that's what it comes down to. You've got a truly great player, one of the four or five best players in baseball, with some reasonable chance of either devastating injury or sudden decline (which might not even end up being your problem).

If you move him, you lose that elite, potentially legendary player and gain a very good one (assuming, again, that he can even handle the position). I just think that you'd better have a really solid reason to do something like that. He might give them that reason someday, but it hasn't happened yet. - By Bill Parker, The Daily Something