quote:Originally posted by PGStaff: He wants data! (proof) Geez, this site would be tough to keep up with if we had to provide data and proof everytime we post.
I don’t know what I said that was so egregious. All I said was that I didn’t know what you said was “proven” even though I tended to agree. Then you provided some what looks like pretty easy to get data, and although it proves nothing conclusively, its certainly good enough for the purposes of this discussion.
You see, I didn’t KNOW anything, and therefore couldn’t be counted with “EVERYONE”. How would I or anyone else get access to the same data you do?
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff: But did they lower the rates when the NCAA implemented bat restrictions a few years ago?
Which should imply that if they thought the dangers had increased again, they would definitely have no reservations about re-raising the rates.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff: They are both dangerous, but I like the "odds" of staying healthy a lot better with wood.
What you like may or may not reflect what the math does, but it doesn’t matter if that’s what you feel. I never argued with that at all.
But consider this. is it at all possible that the numbers you see are very much skewed from what the vast majority of play is? IOW, would a suitable solution be to use wood for the higher caliber of play, such as tournaments?
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff: If hitting production increases, so does the danger to the pitcher!
That isn’t the issue. There’s some level of danger present, just because it’s a sport with things flying around, people running all over the place, and all the other things going on. The issue is, does the use of metal bats increase the danger to unacceptable levels?
For you and lots of others, the answer is obviously yes. For me, the answer is, I don’t know because I don’t know because I don’t have access to all of the data I’d need to make an intelligent decision.
I can tell you that my gut feeling is the same as yours, but that isn’t proof. So, what do I do to try to resolve this issue? I rely on those people who are in the business of risk analysis. Insurance companies. To the best of my knowledge, they don’t see the risk as being significant enough to warrant action. Hence, my position.
Maybe rather than going back and forth, we need to try to define what an acceptable risk is. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the chances of significant injury to a pitcher with a metal bat is 1 in 1,000, and the chances with wood is 1 in 100,000. That’s a pretty significant difference.
But what if the difference was only 1 in 10.000, for wood. That’s still 10 times more likely, and probable would lose a few folks, but not a whole lot.
Now lets say its only 1 in 2,000. That means metal injuries are twice as likely than wood. That’s still a pretty significant difference, but let’s look at that real hard. What if the odds were in the millions instead of the thousands?
It would still be twice as likely with metal, but the odds of it happening at all are significantly higher, so does that change anything?
Here’s a link to a LLI statement. http://www.littleleague.org/media/USA_Youth_Baseball_012507.asp
Let’s not argue its merits, but let’s look at the last paragraph.
What this data does indicate is that injuries to the pitcher from batted balls are very rare and can happen while using metal or wood bats. There is no data to indicate that the few catastrophic injuries to baseball pitchers from metal bats would not have happened if the batter was using a wood bat. Before any sport makes rule changes, equipment changes, or other changes related to the safety of the participants, it is imperative that these changes are based on reliable injury data and not anecdotal information.
How can anyone argue that that paragraph doesn’t make a great deal of sense.
So what’s an acceptable number?