I realize that there is a load of emotion involved here, particularly with pitchers parents and specifically with those who sons have been "drilled"----but it happens with wood as well--you see it happen every day in the "Bigs"---it is part of the game---just like injuries in other sports--there are young s o k k e r players who have been killed in games--one of my best friends had a son die on a s o k k e r field at the age of 14, and he was a goalie---he was dead before anyone got to the boy
These are thigs we accept as part of life--why do people become policemen, firemen, construction workers --how about the 11 workers on the oil rig that went down this week---nobody takes on these jobs without knowing the risks---that is what life is
The bus argument is not realistic sense we are talking about a very large mass traveling at very slow speeds. For this scenario:
105 vs 98 mph the baseball impact is 15% greater for a 9% greater velo(V2 function). The time difference from plate to impact is .03 secs which is linear so there is 9% less time to react for the higher velo ball. (0.39 vs 0.42 secs)
The other issue (probably already argued in the other thread that I have not read) is statistically you would expect to have more high velocity balls hit in the direction of the pitcher with non wood as opposed to wood due to the larger sweet spot, plus a higher COR. There is no data to support this that I am aware of, just a hypotheses based on previous knowledge, facts and observations.
As TR pointed out pitching can be dangerous with or without wood bats.
Most rational people like BHD would therefore conclude that composite/metal bats are bad and wood bats can be bad, but are better.
105 vs 98 mph the baseball impact is 15% greater for a 9% greater velo(V2 function). The time difference from plate to impact is .03 secs which is linear so there is 9% less time to react for the higher velo ball. (0.39 vs 0.42 secs)
The other issue (probably already argued in the other thread that I have not read) is statistically you would expect to have more high velocity balls hit in the direction of the pitcher with non wood as opposed to wood due to the larger sweet spot, plus a higher COR. There is no data to support this that I am aware of, just a hypotheses based on previous knowledge, facts and observations.
As TR pointed out pitching can be dangerous with or without wood bats.
Most rational people like BHD would therefore conclude that composite/metal bats are bad and wood bats can be bad, but are better.
quote:I'm saying there's about a 15% difference in the amount of kinetic energy upon impact.
OK, I'll buy that. Based on physics that is absolutely believable. Does that difference translate into any measurable difference in the end result? IE getting nailed at 98 mph vs 105 mph? If you were talking 40 mph vs 105 then I would say you were spot on.
quote:Assume, for just one second, that it’s your kid...do you want the added 15% or not?.
OK, I will assume that. If the starting point (15% less) is going to cause devastating, (possibly catastrophic injuries) how does it matter? That is my point. Getting drilled by a 98mph ball will produce the same results. Very bad. Very ugly.
Broken bones are broken bones whether they were hit at 98mph or 980mph. The point is, balls hit off wood bats still produce enough ball batted speed to cause the types of injuries you and I are both ultimately trying to avoid.
It goes back to what I asked before...would you rather get run over by a bus moving 40mph or 45mph. If the end results are the same, why does it matter and you are going to have an extremely difficult time convincing anyone that the results of getting nailed in the head by a ball traveling 98mph will be any less devastating that getting nailed at 105. At those speeds, none of it is good.
That 7 mph delta could very well mean the difference of 3/16" impingement against the brain (think Gunnar) even though the skull might be fractured at either speed. The risk of dangerous swelling and possible coma therefore rises dramatically with very small increases in speed.
What do you think the Sandburg family would give to go back and have 7 mph taken off the speed of that baseball?
What do you think the Sandburg family would give to go back and have 7 mph taken off the speed of that baseball?
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
I realize that there is a load of emotion involved here, particularly with pitchers parents and specifically with those who sons have been "drilled"----but it happens with wood as well--you see it happen every day in the "Bigs"---it is part of the game---just like injuries in other sports--there are young s o k k e r players who have been killed in games--one of my best friends had a son die on a s o k k e r field at the age of 14, and he was a goalie---he was dead before anyone got to the boy
These are thigs we accept as part of life--why do people become policemen, firemen, construction workers --how about the 11 workers on the oil rig that went down this week---nobody takes on these jobs without knowing the risks---that is what life is
Yup TR, I know that very well and accept it. I'm just talking about lowering risk with something you and I agree makes the game better. Win-win scenario.
quote:The bus argument is not realistic sense we are talking about a very large mass traveling at very slow speeds. For this scenario:
Very good point. What I was trying to get at with the bus analogy is the end result being the same, not the specific physics involved. Maybe a better analogy would be jumping off a 100 foot cliff and landing on pavement vs jumping off a 150 foot cliff. The end result is going to be the same. That is all I was saying. From a physics standpoint, does it really matter what getting hit with a ball traveling 105 mph will do when the starting point of 98 mph will cause the same devastating injury?
As for the statistics, again, I agree with you 100% in the sense that statistically speaking, you would imagine that swinging metal would give a great statistical probability of producing that horrible come backer since it has a larger sweet spot. It's exactly what I thought when I jumped into all of this with my BBCORE remarks in another thread. It makes perfectly good sense to believe that.
The problem is, again, using statistics, there isn't anything to back up that plausible theory. The same theory that I believed as well, which completely surprised me. I can't tell you why that is. Is it due to poor record keeping? Is it due to the fact that thank goodness, these types of issues are like lightning strikes and are so few and far between that it is statistically insignificant whether you hit off wood or metal? Far greater numbers of at bats are taken each year with metal vs wood. It has to be on a level of magnitude yet there are no facts that support a theory that after 300 years, if true, should have been a slam dunk. I have also been told that statistics don’t matter in the sense of the actual end results. They only matter in the theory that I mentioned about the sweet spot which is another head scratcher. How do you cite statistics to back up your theory and then discount statistics when they fail to prove your theory or even worse, disprove your theory?
When you get back to the heart of the matter...is wood safer than metal, the answer isn't yes. When you demand that metal be banned and wood be used for safety reasons with no evidence that it will save one life or prevent a single injury, yet you pass over much easier safety fixes that can guarantee safer results, it makes me wonder what the real agenda is because I have a hard time believing it really is about safety at that point.
quote:That 7 mph delta could very well mean the difference of 3/16" impingement against the brain (think Gunnar) even though the skull might be fractured at either speed. The risk of dangerous swelling and possible coma therefore rises dramatically with very small increases in speed.
What do you think the Sandburg family would give to go back and have 7 mph taken off the speed of that baseball?
Honestly, that isn't a fair question to ask at all. You have absolutely no idea if that 7mph would make ANY difference. None... so asking a question like this serves no purpose other than to inflame emotion. If you can show those specific injuries would not have occurred if the ball hit them 7 miles an hour slower then go for it.
These are the exact comparisons I was trying to avoid in the discussion quite frankly. Unless you have some proof to back that up, it's a pretty reckless statement to make.
Go back to wood at HS and above and circa 1972 metal bats at Pony and below. Why not wood for LL like many of us used?
Personally, just ban the metal and composite period. Yeah, I know it won't happen but the reason it won't happen has nothing to do with baseball itself.
Statistics....BS. Can be massaged to say what you want in most cases. There is no way to compare injury numbers accurately with metal bats as the kid that got hit with the metal may have been able to catch/deflect the same hit off wood but then nothing woulld have happened so it isn't reported.
Need some human volunteers to take shots hit back at them off wood and metal at varying but identical batspeeds. Say 5000 quantity sample from each bat should give you a good basis. Compare the numbers of balls hitting the pitcher versus what he caught/deflected for each. On balls hitting pitcher, chart injury by severity from each bat. Over the course of a study like that we should be able to determine at what speed each bat type presents the most risk.
Any volunteers? Yeah, most of us are too fat and old to be a good subject group of volunteers. OK. Better idea....just volunteer your kid.
****Just be sure to include proof of insurance and a signed liability waiver by both the kid and the parent if under 18 yr old.
Personally, just ban the metal and composite period. Yeah, I know it won't happen but the reason it won't happen has nothing to do with baseball itself.
Statistics....BS. Can be massaged to say what you want in most cases. There is no way to compare injury numbers accurately with metal bats as the kid that got hit with the metal may have been able to catch/deflect the same hit off wood but then nothing woulld have happened so it isn't reported.
Need some human volunteers to take shots hit back at them off wood and metal at varying but identical batspeeds. Say 5000 quantity sample from each bat should give you a good basis. Compare the numbers of balls hitting the pitcher versus what he caught/deflected for each. On balls hitting pitcher, chart injury by severity from each bat. Over the course of a study like that we should be able to determine at what speed each bat type presents the most risk.
Any volunteers? Yeah, most of us are too fat and old to be a good subject group of volunteers. OK. Better idea....just volunteer your kid.
****Just be sure to include proof of insurance and a signed liability waiver by both the kid and the parent if under 18 yr old.
quote:Any volunteers? Yeah, most of us are too fat and old to be a good subject group of volunteers. OK. Better idea....just volunteer your kid.
After 4 years of D1 college ball and all those years of elite ball, I think we are aware of the risks. I was searching for a video that shoe4d the closest he came to getting hit and he deflected the ball with the back of his glove . He had no time to open his gtlove.
He was taught to finish in a defensive position and was never hit.
I asked him if he cared about wood or metal and he said it made no difference to him. He caught several scorchers hit at his head.
quote:Originally posted by 1baseballdad:quote:That 7 mph delta could very well mean the difference of 3/16" impingement against the brain (think Gunnar) even though the skull might be fractured at either speed. The risk of dangerous swelling and possible coma therefore rises dramatically with very small increases in speed.
What do you think the Sandburg family would give to go back and have 7 mph taken off the speed of that baseball?
Honestly, that isn't a fair question to ask at all. You have absolutely no idea if that 7mph would make ANY difference. None... so asking a question like this serves no purpose other than to inflame emotion. If you can show those specific injuries would not have occurred if the ball hit them 7 miles an hour slower then go for it.
These are the exact comparisons I was trying to avoid in the discussion quite frankly. Unless you have some proof to back that up, it's a pretty reckless statement to make.
Not a fair question...why? Because it gets to the true heart of the matter? That severity of injury is inextricably proportional to batted ball speed?
It is understandable why you might wish to avoid these types of comparisons, but with all (due) respect, your motives fairly reek.
So:
What do you think the Sandburg family would give to go back and have 7 mph taken off the speed of that baseball?
PG what we are saying is show us the proof. Before you start legislating give us some concrete proof. Metal has been around long enough to have proof.
This isn't just about baseball it is about the slippery slope of banning things without some logistical proof.
This isn't just about baseball it is about the slippery slope of banning things without some logistical proof.
A couple years ago there was a college pitcher severly injured by a head shot. He came back and pitched again after he recovered. I have forgotten his name but I remember everyone was excited he got right back on the mound.
quote:Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
...That is a difference of just under 3 100's of a second. Say it again. 3 100's of a second. ...
On what basis are you dismissing this amount of time as insignificant, as it pertains to human reaction time?
More opportunity with metal to be hit. Watched a kid with really quick hands golf the baseball off the end of the bat. Ok, with wood - what would happen? Probably a weak grounder. I think metal bats do not encourage the development of a good baseball swing. I hate metal.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
PG what we are saying is show us the proof. Before you start legislating give us some concrete proof. Metal has been around long enough to have proof.
This isn't just about baseball it is about the slippery slope of banning things without some logistical proof.
I think the problem with this whole argument about banning metal bats is defining "proof".
Some say the difference in the number of players injured with metal compared to wood is insignificant so that is proof they are okay.
Some say the exit speed and sweet spot on the metal bats are proof that metal is not safe.
Some say simple observation is enough proof to satisfy what is safer and what is not.
Until you (that is directed to everyone) clearly state what proof you are looking for... this will only continue to be an enjoyable thread to read.
What proof does one need to be swayed to the other side?
1. Numnber of injuries?
2. Types of injuries?
3. Probablity of getting injuried?
4. Probablity of not being able to react to a ball coming of a matal bat compared to wood?
5. Any difference in types of injuries based on type of bat.
6. Is the game played better with one type of bat or another... this is another huge arguement....
7. Number of players with Hot Moms using metal compared to wood?......
I would love to hear some sides actaully say what it would take to be convinced or to change their mind....
It is also valid to say "No amount of proof will cause me to change my mind!". It just means I can skip over your future posts in this thread......
Again, and for me the last time:
Forget the safety debate for a moment, what other sport, at the high school and college level, utilizes equipment fundamental to the sport that is illegal at the professional level?
Forget the safety debate for a moment, what other sport, at the high school and college level, utilizes equipment fundamental to the sport that is illegal at the professional level?
Proof is injuries. Metal has been used for almost 40 years. Surely there would be enough proof by now.
Our teams used both wood and metal. The younger teams and HS used metal. Never saw any serious injuries.
I was at the Blue Jays barbecue last Sunday and had a chance to talk to Vernon Wells. A poster had said Vernon had done tests for his company in anther thread about metal vs wood. Turns out Vernon said he has never been involved in any tests.
Our teams used both wood and metal. The younger teams and HS used metal. Never saw any serious injuries.
I was at the Blue Jays barbecue last Sunday and had a chance to talk to Vernon Wells. A poster had said Vernon had done tests for his company in anther thread about metal vs wood. Turns out Vernon said he has never been involved in any tests.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Proof is injuries.
Is that total number of injuries or type?
What amount of difference would it take to change your mind (in any)? 1% .1% or 10%?
Does the type or severity of injury matter?
Is the potenital for being injury matter or do they have to be injured (and have it reported) for it to count?
I have no answers but "injuries" is rather vague.
Severe enough to require medical attention.
This has been covered in the info supplied by 1Baseballdad.
This has been covered in the info supplied by 1Baseballdad.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Severe enough to require medical attention.
This has been covered in the info supplied by 1Baseballdad.
Okay, that helps.
So, I see your argument as: "until X number of players are hurt (requiring medical attention and documented) by metal bats and there must be X percent more injuries from metal then those caused by wood bat, nothing should be done".
Please correct if I am misunderstanding your argument.
Okay, I can live with that argument....
I don't think there is any proof out there that will change your mind....
As a matter of fact, I hope there never is....
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
PG what we are saying is show us the proof. Before you start legislating give us some concrete proof. Metal has been around long enough to have proof.
This isn't just about baseball it is about the slippery slope of banning things without some logistical proof.
BHD - The “proof” you seek is already there you are just choosing to ignore it. You remind me of the Monte Python Agument Scetch “This is not an argument, it is a contradiction” You are just bringing up contradictions.
Evidence is information, such as facts, coupled with principles of interfence. (the process of deriving a conclusion) We don’t need a government funded program to come to a logical conclusion based on the given evidence.
The facts are: 1) Metal/Composit bats have higher exit speed than wood. 2) They have a greater hitting area and subsequently have higher exit speeds over a wider contact area 3) Todays players are bigger stronger, throwing harder, swinging harder, so balls are going faster more often.
Now you take the evidence of kids like Gunnar Sandberg becoming crtitically injured, coupled with the observations from knowlegeable baseball people like PG who have witnessed the increase in batted ball velocities and close calls for pitchers and other players. We come to the logical conclusion that composite bats are bad. What more evidence do you need?
We as a society have elected officials whom we empower to help make our society work better and safer. If we convince them that it is better for our community to get rid of these bats then what is bad from this? I am not saying this will happen, but there is a better chance now, given the momentum in the market. Please explain to me what is wrong with this?
Bobblehead,
Glad to hear your son was lucky enough not to get hit. Unfortunately, not all pitchers have your son's athletic skill to be able to avoid contact. It only takes one pitch and hanging a cleat on your delivery and any pitcher is in jeopardy. Skill is important but luck plays a big part in the equation.
The question isn't injuries that ocurred but rather could/would they have been avoided if a metal bat was not in use? Impossible to know and close plays/avoidances and not all injuries are not reported. Based on the known physics and human reaction time, it is logical to make a hypothesis that metal bats do put a pitcher at some level of higher risk. What purpose does that higher risk level serve to the game itself? To society?
Jimmy03 also presents a valid argument. How much do we want to change the game at lower levels? Is about the game or self gratification by the player and parents?
Still like my study/trial mentioned previously. 5000 shots from each bat should be large enough of a sample size.
Glad to hear your son was lucky enough not to get hit. Unfortunately, not all pitchers have your son's athletic skill to be able to avoid contact. It only takes one pitch and hanging a cleat on your delivery and any pitcher is in jeopardy. Skill is important but luck plays a big part in the equation.
The question isn't injuries that ocurred but rather could/would they have been avoided if a metal bat was not in use? Impossible to know and close plays/avoidances and not all injuries are not reported. Based on the known physics and human reaction time, it is logical to make a hypothesis that metal bats do put a pitcher at some level of higher risk. What purpose does that higher risk level serve to the game itself? To society?
Jimmy03 also presents a valid argument. How much do we want to change the game at lower levels? Is about the game or self gratification by the player and parents?
Still like my study/trial mentioned previously. 5000 shots from each bat should be large enough of a sample size.
quote:Originally posted by wraggArm:quote:Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
...That is a difference of just under 3 100's of a second. Say it again. 3 100's of a second. ...
On what basis are you dismissing this amount of time as insignificant, as it pertains to human reaction time?
.03 seconds is about 1/5th the time it takes to blink. Are you or anyone else going to tell me that is going to make a difference for a pitcher one way or the other?
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
I think there is reason to debate the safety factor and even the marketing of products, but safety is a real factor for me! Neither is safe, but one is "obviously more" dangerous than the other! And the best and most advanced are using the least dangerous one. Why not just follow the leader on this.
Your statement started the wheels rolling for me...yeah, pretty scary.
You guys have a unique opportunity to actually be in a position to further this discussion with factual information on this subject.
After several threads of beating this to death, I wondered what in the world could we (the baseball community having this discussion) do to get past this stage of the discussion? How do we move it forward one way or the other and get it out of this rut?
You guys hold how many wood bat tournaments a year with how many teams participating? What a great way to start compiling statistics as it pertains to number of at bats vs. pitcher or infielder injuries due to balls being hit back at them. I would think that after just one season you would have more than enough at bats to put some meaningful data together. You also attract the best of the best so there could be no way anyone could question the caliber of hitting when providing those statistics. You could even co-ordinate the efforts with other major wood bat event holders.
This only captures one side of the equation but at least it is a start. Throw a little PR behind it and it might be enough to get others involved to ensure the metal side is represented in the study as well. Heck, throw a challenge out to the metal bat makers to join your efforts for the study. Use safety as the hook. After all, they are very certain their product isn’t inherently more dangerous than wood so it could be a bit embarrassing if they didn’t rise to such a challenge.
If you could get the PR for something like this, it would give you the platform to speak to the virtues of hitting with wood vs. metal and in the end, even if the results come back and say that statistically, there is no difference in safety, you have been given a great stage to make your case regardless. It seems almost everyone agrees that for the integrity of the game, wood is by far the better choice for HS ball and above. What a great way to get that message out. Who knows, in the end, you may also be able to show that metal is indeed more dangerous than wood.
What I am saying is it should be a win win for the wood crowd no matter what. It gets the wood vs metal debate out of this ditch and shifts it to something that is just about impossible to argue against.
Just thinking out loud which almost always gets me into trouble.
So when do we start legislating the size of motor and hp your car can have ? I think we can make a better argument about limiting how powerful and how fast your car can go.
quote:So when do we start legislating the size of motor and hp your car can have ? I think we can make a better argument about limiting how powerful and how fast your car can go.
Go erase that. There may be politicians reading this board! Stop giving them ideas!!
They would be hung from the nearest tree.
quote:Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
.03 seconds is about 1/5th the time it takes to blink. Are you or anyone else going to tell me that is going to make a difference for a pitcher one way or the other?
I dunno. I'm not a Human Factors expert. But when I do the same mindless web search you just did, in addition to saying an eye-blink is about 100ms, it shows that the average college athlete's reaction time is on the order of 150ms. So we're on a ~400ms total timeline, with athletes who have been getting hurt with a 150ms reaction capability (I think you'd have to conclude that the other 250ms are needed to recognize you're in a line-drive-back-at-your-face situation. That seems reasonable, given that we all know the hardest ball to judge is the one coming right at you because there's no transverse line-of-sight rate). Point is that we're talking about a 15-20% degradation on that reaction timeline.
By the way, looks like a blink of the eye kills almost half of the 250ms recognition time "right off the bat", as it were. Doesn't all of that kind of highlight what a razor's edge the whole thing is on?
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
They would be hung from the nearest tree.
Dude, you're from Canada. Why start worrying about fixing poorly-conceived government now?
quote:Originally posted by 1baseballdad:quote:So when do we start legislating the size of motor and hp your car can have ? I think we can make a better argument about limiting how powerful and how fast your car can go.
Go erase that. There may be politicians reading this board! Stop giving them ideas!!
I couldn't agree more with you on your point about keeping government out of the baseball's safety regs. The game needs to take care of its self, and stay away from all the unintended consequences that come with government trying to do the thinking.
wraggarm, you asked the significance of .03 seconds and I gave an example.
1/5th the time it takes to blink your eye.
We are talking about a pitcher who has just followed through with a pitch and is now in a very prone position. One arm down and the glove pulled and tucked into his hip.
.03 isn't going to make one bit of difference in that situation. I think that is a very reasonable assessment.
"Doesn't all of that kind of highlight what a razor's edge the whole thing is on?"
Absolutly and my point was just that. In these situations, it isn't going to matter if the ball is hit with wood or metal. It just isn't going to end well.
I will also say that personally I think the new BBCOR ratings should be instituted next year and not wait for 2012. Talk about making metal bat manufactures mad...
1/5th the time it takes to blink your eye.
We are talking about a pitcher who has just followed through with a pitch and is now in a very prone position. One arm down and the glove pulled and tucked into his hip.
.03 isn't going to make one bit of difference in that situation. I think that is a very reasonable assessment.
"Doesn't all of that kind of highlight what a razor's edge the whole thing is on?"
Absolutly and my point was just that. In these situations, it isn't going to matter if the ball is hit with wood or metal. It just isn't going to end well.
I will also say that personally I think the new BBCOR ratings should be instituted next year and not wait for 2012. Talk about making metal bat manufactures mad...