Seeing through the illusion

The argument against safety when it comes to baseball netting

The argument against safety when it comes to baseball netting

Getty Images

Just over a week has gone by since a young fan was taken to the hospital after being struck by a foul ball during the Astros-Cubs game. Since the event the overwhelming response in the media has been a demand to extend netting around stadiums and make games safer. That's why many were surprised this week when Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred came out and made the following statement: "It's very difficult given how far the clubs have gone with the netting to make changes during the year, because they really are structural issues." He went on to say; "But, because safety is so important, I'm sure that conversation will begin and continue into the offseason."

Translation: Not much is going to change.

If you believe structural issues are really the problem, it's time to wake up. Let's see if I can put that Rice MBA to work and dissect the argument against safety.

MLB is a business, and when you run a business it tends to boil down to cash and an equation. Clearly a fan getting hurt is not good for business, but at the moment it's a price that baseball is willing to pay to keep making a profit and prioritize its other issues. If you are having a hard time with this issue try thinking about it like this:

On average there are 30 foul balls hit per game. The average attendance per game around the league last year was over 28 thousand people. Though small, there are a percentage of fans that if asked would say that the chance to catch those foul balls are a key factor in them choosing to show up to the game rather than watch on TV. Additionally there are a small percentage of fans who upgrade their seats because they want to sit closer to the "action". Let's say it's just 25 fans in each category, a very conservative number. With the average ticket cost around $70 and the average seat upgrade around $30 you're looking at revenue of $2,500 a game or over $200,000 for an 81 home game season. What if that number is instead 100 fans per game who prioritize foul balls? Then your profit jumps to over 800K for the season. Now let's ask ourselves, if we interviewed 28,000 people at a baseball game do we think more or less than 100 would say they like the chance to catch foul balls?

Now let's add in sponsorships. If you've been to an Astros game lately you know that Chick-fil-a sponsors the "fan catch of the night". Years ago I heard a rumor that single advertisements placed in the stadium can cost upwards of $50K and that is just for a small sign. I'm not even going to venture a guess into what they charge Chick-fil-a to have their name broadcasted throughout the stadium all year; let's just say it's a lot.

Now let's add in some other factors. The commissioner is already dealing with a year to year decline in game attendance and has decided to prioritize fan interaction. We've seen the youtube clips of kids playing catch with players and even expecting couples throwing gender reveal baseballs for players to hit. The question has to be asked, how much would these types of events be impacted by additional netting?

The point is this stuff adds up. I'm not the commissioner; I am armed only with very conservative estimates and the ability to google things like average number of foul balls hit per game. However, based on what I wrote above you can see how it's hard to make the choice to risk that much revenue.

I already hear you, how cold right? What about the little girl?

In my short lived high school baseball career I have been unfortunate enough to witness a baseball take a bad hop and cause significant damage to a teammate's face. To this day, I see that image played out whenever I hold a baseball. For all those who witnessed this young Astros fan being hit, for the poor father who had to rush his daughter out of the stadium, and for the young girl herself; this event is scarring (beyond a level I know). When you think about it like that the decision about nets should be simple. However that's not the way the commissioner thinks about it. In fact he gets paid not to think about it that way. It's not that the little girl doesn't matter; it's that those calling for safety are not speaking his language. At this time the commissioner's equation from a business standpoint is clear: Put in nets and risk $Millions in revenue and sponsorship opportunities vs don't put in nets and pay a few thousand for a kids hospital visit. Harsh… but true.

Let's stop fooling ourselves that sports are different. The commissioner's decision here is no different than a CEO at a car company deciding if they should issue a recall because a defect might cause an accident. Fans are all just numbers in an equation, and we aren't going see a change until we flip that equation around. We need to see a mob of people asking Chick-fil-a executives why they are comfortable sponsoring foul ball catches if they are so dangerous. We need to see fans stop cheering when a dad in the stands makes a catch with a baby in his arms. We need to stop encouraging fans to chug their beer when the ball lands in the cup. Any of that seem likely?

I wish I could see the real numbers being fed to the commissioner about this issue. Just with these estimations I have to admit I probably would be taking the same steps I was in his position. Then again, I'm about to have my first child and if I take her to a game I can already tell you where we will be sitting; behind netting.

Most Popular

SportsMap Emails
Are Awesome

Listen Live

ESPN Houston 97.5 FM
Kyle Tucker and Alex Bregman are hot names at the Winter Meetings. Composite Getty Image.

The woeful state of the Astros' farm system has made it very expensive to continue maintaining a good team, prohibitively so (in part self-imposed) from having a great team. Even if they re-sign Alex Bregman, trading Framber Valdez and/or Kyle Tucker for prospects could snap the Astros' run of eight straight postseason appearances. But if they KNOW that no way do they intend to offer Framber five years 130 million dollars, Tucker 7/225 or whatever their free agent markets might be after next season, keeping them for 2025 but getting nothing but 2026 compensatory draft picks for them could do multi-year damage to the franchise.

The time is here for the Astros to be aggressively shopping both. It doesn't make trading them obligatory, but even though many purported top prospects amount to little or nothing (look up what the Astros traded to Detroit for Justin Verlander, to Pittsburgh for Gerrit Cole, to Arizona for Zack Greinke) if strong packages are offered the Astros need to act if unwilling (reasonably or not) to pay Valdez/Tucker.

Last offseason the Milwaukee Brewers traded pitching ace Corbin Burnes one season ahead of his free agency and then again won the National League Central, the San Diego Padres dealt Juan Soto and wound up much improved and a playoff team after missing the 2023 postseason. But nailing the trades is critical. The Brewers got their everyday rookie third baseman Joey Ortiz and two other prospects. The Padres got quality starter Michael King, catcher Kyle Hagashioka, and three prospects.

Back to Bregman

Meanwhile, decision time approaches for Alex Bregman. He, via agent Scott Boras, wants 200-plus million dollars. Don't we all. If he can land that from somebody, congratulations. The Astros' six-year 156 million dollar contract offer is more than fair. That's 26 million dollars per season and would take Bregman within a few months of his 37th birthday. If rounding up to 160 mil gets it done, ok I guess. Going to 200 would be silly.

While Bregman hasn't been a superstar (or even an All-Star) since 2019, he's still a very good player. That includes his 2024 season which showed decline offensively. Not falling off a cliff decline other than his walk rate plunging about 45 percent, but decline. If Bregman remains the exact player he was this season, six-156 is pricey but not crazy in the current marketplace. But how likely is Bregman to not drop off further in his mid-30s? As noted before, the storyline is bogus that Bregman has been a postseason monster. Over seven League Championship Series and four World Series Bregman has a .196 batting average.
The Astros already should be sweating some over Jose Altuve having shown marked decline this season, before his five year 125 million dollar extension covering 2025-2029 even starts. Altuve was still very good offensively though well down from 2022 and 2023 (defensively his data are now awful), but as he approaches turning 35 years old in May some concern is warranted when locked into paying a guy until he's nearly 39 1/2.

Jim Crane is right in noting that long contracts paying guys huge money in their later years generally go poorly for the clubs.

Bang for your buck

Cleveland third baseman Jose Ramirez is heading into the second year of a five-year, $124 million extension. That's 24.8 million dollars per season. Jose Ramirez is a clearly better player than Alex Bregman. Ramirez has been the better player for five consecutive seasons, and only in 2023 was it even close. It should be noted that Ramirez signed his extension in April of 2022. He is about a year and a half older than Bregman so the Guardians are paying their superstar through his age 36 season.

Bregman benefits from playing his home games at soon-to be named Daikin Park. Bregman hit 26 home runs this year. Using ball-tracking data, if he had played all his games in Houston, Bregman would have hit 31 homers. Had all his swings been taken at Yankee Stadium, the "Breggy Bomb" count would have been 25. In Cleveland, just 18. Ramirez hit 41 dingers. If all his games were home games 40 would have cleared the fences, if all had been at Minute Maid Park 47 would have been gone.

Matt Chapman recently signed a six-year 151 million dollar deal to stay with the San Francisco Giants. That's 25.166 million per season. Chapman was clearly a better player than Bregman this year. But it's the only season of Chapman's career that is the case. Chapman is 11 months older than Bregman, so his lush deal with the Giants carries through his age 37 season.

The Giants having overpaid Chapman doesn't obligate the Astros to do the same with Bregman. So, if you're the Astros do you accept overpaying Bregman? They would almost certainly be worse without him in 2025, but what about beyond? Again, having not one elite prospect in their minor league system boxes them in. Still, until/unless the Seattle Mariners upgrade their offense, the Astros cling to American League West favorites status. On the other hand, WITH Bregman, Tucker, and Valdez the Astros are no postseason lock.

For Texans’ conversation, catch Brandon Strange, Josh Jordan, and me on our Texans On Tap podcasts. Thursdays feature a preview of the upcoming game, and then we go live (then available on demand) after the final gun of the game: Texans on Tap - YouTube

The Astros are always in season for discussion. Our Stone Cold ‘Stros podcasts drop Mondays: Click here to watch!

SportsMap Emails
Are Awesome