3.85 miles and hour faster does not suprise me. I really dont there there is a huge exit speed difference. I think the biggest difference is in the amount of "cheap hits" a player can muscle out of an metal bat.
So, I'm going to get really redundant here... If our sports professionals use wood to play then why are we training our youth using metal.
BTW, a huge Spring tournament out here "The National Classic" has changed and is swinging wood this year.
quote:Originally posted by wraggArm:quote:One of the sporting goods suppliers sd that it requires more strength to swing maple since it is more dense.
I don't understand how this could be true. A 35in/32oz bat is a 35in/32oz bat, whether it's made of Maple or feathers. The only thing that I could see changing the strength required would be if the moment-of-inertia about the swing's pivot point is different. But that too seems unlikely, since the shape of most bats are so similar, and since the mass is distributed pretty evenly no matter what kind of wood.
Any physics guys out there who could explain this one ?
If I'm not mistaken,Ash bats are more flexible and forgiving than Maple giving it a more trampoline effect similar to what metal/comp bats do.I relate it having a "flex" and "stiff" handle bat of the same model.Generally the power hitters like the stiff handle to transfer more energy into the ball.Weaker player/hitters may benefit from the handle flexing to help propel the ball off the barrel.
Coach May, I couldn't agree with your post more.I guess that make me Old School as well and I'm perfectly fine with that.Too bad more don't have that same mind set.---Aloha.
" Disclaimer: While the results were not published in peer-reviewed research journals until 2000-2001, the data for the Crisco-Greenwald batting cage study was collected during 1997-1998. The bats used in this study were manufactured before the NCAA implemented its current performance limits which restrict the performance of an aluminum bat through (i) the "minus-3" Length-weight rule, (ii) the BESR test (ball exit speed ratio), and (iii) the lower limit on moment-of-inertia. Thus, the bats used in this study are not representative of aluminum bats allowed for use at high school and college levels under current NCAA rules. None of the 5 aluminum bats in this study would be legal today. The batted-ball speeds measured in the Crisco-Greenwald study are significantly higher than batted-ball speeds obainted with bats which currently pass the NCAA performance standards. The data from the Crisco-Greenwald study should NOT be used to argue against the use of aluminum bats because this data does not represent the status of bat performance under current NCAA rules. No bat which currently passes the NCAA performance standards will perform as high as the best metal bats in the Crisco-Greenwald study."
Just
Did you read this part of the study ?
Pay particular attention to the last couple lines.
Just
Did you read this part of the study ?
Pay particular attention to the last couple lines.
To add to this:
Playfair mentioned that the Diamond National Classic that is next week in Orange County is going to wood. The primary reason is that Gunnar Sandberg's team, Marin Catholic, is in the tournament and made the request that all teams that they play use wood and offered to supply all bats. The tournament has now decided to go wood for all games.
WingKing
Playfair mentioned that the Diamond National Classic that is next week in Orange County is going to wood. The primary reason is that Gunnar Sandberg's team, Marin Catholic, is in the tournament and made the request that all teams that they play use wood and offered to supply all bats. The tournament has now decided to go wood for all games.
WingKing
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
" Disclaimer: While the results were not published in peer-reviewed research journals until 2000-2001, the data for the Crisco-Greenwald batting cage study was collected during 1997-1998. The bats used in this study were manufactured before the NCAA implemented its current performance limits which restrict the performance of an aluminum bat through (i) the "minus-3" Length-weight rule, (ii) the BESR test (ball exit speed ratio), and (iii) the lower limit on moment-of-inertia. Thus, the bats used in this study are not representative of aluminum bats allowed for use at high school and college levels under current NCAA rules. None of the 5 aluminum bats in this study would be legal today. The batted-ball speeds measured in the Crisco-Greenwald study are significantly higher than batted-ball speeds obainted with bats which currently pass the NCAA performance standards. The data from the Crisco-Greenwald study should NOT be used to argue against the use of aluminum bats because this data does not represent the status of bat performance under current NCAA rules. No bat which currently passes the NCAA performance standards will perform as high as the best metal bats in the Crisco-Greenwald study."
Just
Did you read this part of the study ?
Pay particular attention to the last couple lines.
I was addressing your assertion that you could swing an end-weighted wood bat faster than a metal bat with a center-of-mass closer to the handle.
The center-of-mass issue and resulting moment-of-inertia issue remain in today's metal bats. You should know that and you should know that you almost certainly could not swing and end-weighted wood bat faster either.
quote:I was addressing your assertion that you could swing an end-weighted wood bat faster than a metal bat with a center-of-mass closer to the handle.
I don't think I made that assertion. I stated I liked a long end weighted bat. Once you get the head of the bat moving around a fulcrum the leverage is greater. That point of contact when your muscles (Twitch) kick in is the crucial point in the swing. The more extension you have the greater the power at contact.
What amazes me is how you ignore the study you provided that clearly shows that metal bats have been detuned. If it was a 3-4 mph difference before what is it now. You used 1886 data and the researchers recognized that.
It's not that I and others don't prefer wood but don't ignore the facts.
quote:I don't think I made that assertion.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
I used to swing a wood bat. I chose the longest one I could find that was weighted to wards the end of the bat. Pure and simple that once you get the head of the bat moving it has greater leverage and speed....
You are assuming I was saying greater than metal. It was referring to wood that was not weighted at the end.
Still not likely (if at all). Highly unlikely that you can swing an end-weighted bat faster than one with the center-of-mass closer to your hands. Wood or metal? Doesn't matter on this point.
It isn't just about bat speed. It is about extension and puting the most mass against a ball coming into contact at a high rate of velocity.
The closer to the handle of the center of mass, the lower the moment of inertia.
The lower the moment of inertia, the faster the hitter can swing the bat.
The faster the bat speed, the faster the ball exit speed.
The faster the ball exit speed, the less time for a pitcher to react.
Physics. I'm finished with you on this. You can have the last word...which is I suspect what you want.
The lower the moment of inertia, the faster the hitter can swing the bat.
The faster the bat speed, the faster the ball exit speed.
The faster the ball exit speed, the less time for a pitcher to react.
Physics. I'm finished with you on this. You can have the last word...which is I suspect what you want.
Now I can see why no one wins here.
Back to your study. If the exit speed was 3+ mph based on actual college hitters, what is it now that the bats are detuned ? We have to agree that they used metal bats with faster swings according to you. If the bats are detuned is it not reasonable that the exits speeds are considerably lower when swung by the same batters.
My preference in bats has nothing to do with the study.
Back to your study. If the exit speed was 3+ mph based on actual college hitters, what is it now that the bats are detuned ? We have to agree that they used metal bats with faster swings according to you. If the bats are detuned is it not reasonable that the exits speeds are considerably lower when swung by the same batters.
My preference in bats has nothing to do with the study.
One thought that pops up periodically in this thread is pitcher reaction time to a batted ball. From a logic standpoint a ball coming at you is a ball coming at you, independent of what propelled it. Batters are constantly working on improving their ability to react to pitches through BP, physical conditioning and eye-brain-hand efficiancy and so on.
What do pitchers do along those same lines?
A ball coming at you at 90 mph is a ball coming at you at 90 mph.
What do pitchers do along those same lines?
A ball coming at you at 90 mph is a ball coming at you at 90 mph.
I certainly hope the crack in the metal bat monopoly is finally here. I know I'm "just" a mom but my son has played travel ball for 10 years and is now a HS senior. He has played with both metal and wood bats and has had success with both so my beef is not because of his batting average.
When son was 12 years old he hit a ball back to the pitcher with enough force that the pitcher's jaw was broken. That same summer while pitching son was hit by a batted ball with enough force that it knocked him off the mound. Thanks be to God that neither shot caused a life threatening, or at the very least, a life altering injury. Either time it could have, though.
My point is that we all need to stand together to see that we do the right thing for our boys! Grassroots movements have long been a successful thing in our country. The time is NOW for coaches and schools to make the switch back to wooden bats. After all, isn't it the dream to play professional ball and what kind of bats do the pros use . . . wood.
If each state organization would take the high ground that they would only use wood then we wouldn't be reading stories about young athletes lying in hospitals because they were hit in the head with a ball batted off a metal bat. Isn't it finally time to just say "NO METAL BATS on our field. We care more about our sons and your sons than we care about how far a ball is hit or how high their batting average is." Lets do it for the boys!
When son was 12 years old he hit a ball back to the pitcher with enough force that the pitcher's jaw was broken. That same summer while pitching son was hit by a batted ball with enough force that it knocked him off the mound. Thanks be to God that neither shot caused a life threatening, or at the very least, a life altering injury. Either time it could have, though.
My point is that we all need to stand together to see that we do the right thing for our boys! Grassroots movements have long been a successful thing in our country. The time is NOW for coaches and schools to make the switch back to wooden bats. After all, isn't it the dream to play professional ball and what kind of bats do the pros use . . . wood.
If each state organization would take the high ground that they would only use wood then we wouldn't be reading stories about young athletes lying in hospitals because they were hit in the head with a ball batted off a metal bat. Isn't it finally time to just say "NO METAL BATS on our field. We care more about our sons and your sons than we care about how far a ball is hit or how high their batting average is." Lets do it for the boys!
snowman, One of the things pitchers work on is ending in a position to field a ball. The other infielders are in a ready position while the pitcher is quite vulnerable.
quote:If each state organization would take the high ground that they would only use wood then we wouldn't be reading stories about young athletes lying in hospitals because they were hit in the head with a ball batted off a metal bat.
With all due respect, how do you explain the countless number of athletes that have been seriously injured (or worse) over the years by being hit with a ball batted off a wood bat and do they not deserve the same attention as those hit by a ball that came off metal? Also, what would you propose we ban to keep the wood bat injuries from happening?
quote:If our sports professionals use wood to play then why are we training our youth using metal.
I ask because I don't know the answer for sure. I think I know but as I have said before, thinking tends to get me in trouble.
Do the pro's use the same ball that NCAA and HS teams use? If not, to follow your theme, shouldn't everyone use the same ball the pro's use as well?
quote:Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
With all due respect, how do you explain the countless number of athletes that have been seriously injured (or worse) over the years by being hit with a ball batted off a wood bat and do they not deserve the same attention as those hit by a ball that came off metal? Also, what would you propose we ban to keep the wood bat injuries from happening?
1baseballdad - With all due respect to you (and I do mean that
)...I'm going to comment on that point from a dad whose son was very seriously hit and injured in the head off a wood bat. I think its real important that you think about what I'm going to say because I have a perspective that you simply don't have...you have not walked in my shoes nor my son's shoes on this issue and if there's one thing I've learned through my sons' (two of them) baseball journeys its that I am often surprised at how I see things differently from another side of a fence after I experience things firsthand.This issue is no different.
So here is the deal. Playing in the Cape Cod Summer League, my older son was hit square in the right eye socket off the bat of a future 1st round pick. These were "men" playing a game...far different than HS kids. His orbital socket was shattered. He got the Med-Evac helicopter flight to Mass General. He had two surgeries...the 2nd one lasting about 5 hours in which the same doctor who reconstructed Bryce Florie's face put 4 titanium plates into my son's face...something he told my wife he had never done before. I've seen the post-op xray...it looks like 1/2 of a goalie mask.
I asked my son if he saw the ball. "Yes, the whole way." I asked if he tried to get out of the way. "Yes Dad, I really did!" I have since learned through some engineering and physiological analysis I trust...that the ball was over halfway back to the mound before his brain would have had a chance to sense "danger." There simply wasn't enough time left to react enough to avoid it. This is an important point because 'exit speed' and reaction time are critical.
I thank God and pray for my son every day...thank God that he wasn't hit in the side of the head like Gunnar.
I know through a mutual acquaintance that the young man who hit that ball is bothered by it to this day. My son has faced him about 4-5 more times in MiLB...that young man (the hitter) who is gonna play in the big leagues some day...has not fared well against my son in MiLB even though he's considered far more of a prospect than my son. Why? Don't know for sure, but I can betcha (based on things he said to our mutual acquaintance) a lot of $$ that he is not comfortable hitting against him. I'm certain he doesn't want to be the "lightning that strikes twice."
Now I'm telling you this NOT to gain your sympathy. My son is doing fine, thank you. And if you're thinking, "Ah Ha! Wood IS as dangerous as metal!," you are badly mistaken.
I am telling you this because I know firsthand how devastating this type of accident can be. And I'm telling you as an engineer that I have read/researched this topic quite extensively and I understand the physics of wood versus metal. I have also talked, face-to-face, with a VP of one of the biggest (THE biggest?) metal bat makers about this issue...trust me when I say his company understands exactly what is added with the metal bats. And with that, I believe that if that ball had come off a metal bat that my son might not be with us today. I THANK GOD(!) that the ball that hit my son's face was hit off a wood bat.
So now, I am appealing to your better side to stop the nonsense of debating whether wood is as dangerous as metal. If you understand physics, there is no doubt that metal is more dangerous. If you've ever played the game at a serious level, then you DO know as well as me that metal is a better weapon at the plate.
If you want to debate statistics, I'll advise you to make sure that you truly understand HOW to use statistics...that is, you look at the WHOLE picture...not just the catastrophes...as your data base. You'd better take some data on how many times players of equal skill and strength are nicked, dinged and smacked with a ball off each type of bat. And you better look at exit speeds (statistically) and calculate the RISKS...not just the catastrophic results.
I work in the Aerospace industry and we do NOT calculate risk based on accidents alone...we look at "events" and physics that could have led to a catastrophe. This is how "safety" is calculated. Do you remember 737's that were crashing with little explanations (USAir - Pittsburgh, United - Colorado Springs)...the problem was ultimately solved with physics...not by saying that 1-in-a-million 737 flights crashed so whats the problem? Your arguments based on disastrous events is not a reliable nor fair assessment.
As a current MiLB player facing yet stronger players hitting with wood, my son (and my wife and I) understand there remains a risk. He/we accept it. In fact, we accepted it for his last two years of college ball too...but we also understood that the risk was higher then. We would have VERY HAPPILY supported a college move to wood bats during his remaining two years.
He has been on the mound, facing College World Series competition and 1st round draft picks swinging metal, he has faced current MLB hitters in HS, college and MiLB...and I can assure you...100%...that he will tell you that the ball comes off a metal bat faster all things being equal. I ask, have you been where he has?
There really is nothing left to debate. I'll bet you will, but I am sorry...from the father of someone who has been on the front lines of both wood and metal in youth, HS, college and pro ball...it ain't close brother. Choose to listen...or not. Them's the facts.
Justbaseball, that was a very powerful post. Congrats to you and your son.. And, good luck to your son in his career.
1baseballdad, that is a good question......
They use the same size ball, same weight, I think the lacing is tighter(more stitches)mlb... The reason I say this (guess)is because last year when my son played with (and caught for) a pitcher who went first round our coach got and used mlb quality baseballs (to avoid the blisters associated with lessor quality baseballs).. So to answer; I think everything was the same except the quality and price.
1baseballdad, that is a good question......
quote:Do the pro's use the same ball that NCAA and HS teams use? If not, to follow your theme, shouldn't everyone use the same ball the pro's use as well?
They use the same size ball, same weight, I think the lacing is tighter(more stitches)mlb... The reason I say this (guess)is because last year when my son played with (and caught for) a pitcher who went first round our coach got and used mlb quality baseballs (to avoid the blisters associated with lessor quality baseballs).. So to answer; I think everything was the same except the quality and price.
JB that post is golden. Thank you for sharing your insight and experience with all here.
I am simply amazed at the power and velocity of the so-called "de-tuned" bats. This year, despite an NCAA ban on composite metal bats, average college hitters continue to blow up college pitching. I can't cite the numbers, but I'd bet they're up from last year.
I sat with my son this past weekend at a D1 game while he charted pitches with a Stalker. There were a few 100mph+ readings on that gun, obviously exit speeds of balls that were smoked. The highest I saw was 107, but I swear there had to be some that were higher.
Melt the bats.
I am simply amazed at the power and velocity of the so-called "de-tuned" bats. This year, despite an NCAA ban on composite metal bats, average college hitters continue to blow up college pitching. I can't cite the numbers, but I'd bet they're up from last year.
I sat with my son this past weekend at a D1 game while he charted pitches with a Stalker. There were a few 100mph+ readings on that gun, obviously exit speeds of balls that were smoked. The highest I saw was 107, but I swear there had to be some that were higher.
Melt the bats.
justbaseball, First let me say I am thankful your son pulled through what sounds like a devastating injury that could have easily ended far worse.
I appreciate the post and again, I have said I am completely open on this discussion. I haven't closed my mind and posts like yours add tremendously to the discussion (and my personal knowledge) and the merits of both sides of the argument. Yes, devastating injuries like what happened to your son do happen and banning a metal bat will never change that. I have also said I am not afraid to say sometimes I don't know what I don't know. I have questions of my own concerning this topic and the answers just aren't there. I can't find them and they have yet to be provided. At least not to the point that I can sit here and say that based on evidence of 30 years of using metal bats that they are inherently more dangerous than wood.
The truth is, it isn't a black and white conversation and the emotional aspect that keeps creeping in tends to distract from what I am personally trying to understand...can anyone factually state that metal is more dangerous wood and if so, what facts do you have to definitively make that assertion?
"I work in the Aerospace industry and we do NOT calculate risk based on accidents alone...we look at "events" and physics that could have led to a catastrophe. This is how "safety" is calculated. Do you remember 737's that were crashing with little explanations (USAir - Pittsburgh, United - Colorado Springs)...the problem was discovered with physics...not by saying that 1-in-a-million 737 flights crashed so what's the problem? Your arguments based on disastrous events is not a reliable nor fair assessment."
Great point. But in the end, didn't the physics prove the danger, IE, planes crashing? To compare that to this discussion, by altering the physics (removing metal bats) shouldn't the danger disappear (devastating injures from batted balls end)? What was changed on the 737's to mitigate that future risk? Did it work? Not trying to be a smart a, just trying to understand the analogy you provided. Trying to understand cause and effect. Feel free to throw rocks.
I am not a statistical expert. Am am not a statistical anything to be perfectly honest. I just know that at some point, with as many games that are player per year with both metal and wood, there should be SOMETHING that factually indicates metal is more dangerous than wood. Give me something....ANYTHING that indicates that metal is more dangerous than wood. That is all I am asking. If it is so well known that a metal bat with the same or very similar bat exit speed of a wood bat is more dangerous, shouldn't it be fairly simple to show cause and effect after such a long period of using both metal and wood?
Lastly, I don't think it's quite fair to ask me to stop asking questions on this topic when the most simple of questions can't be and have yet to be answered. I will say we should probably chalk this up to being another topic that evokes strong emotions (no one should be surprised at that based on the topic involving our kids and potential severe injuries) that aren't necessarily rooted in fact and that is OK. We don't always get the answers we want but it isn't going to stop me from asking the questions. It's one reason I never entered the military.
I appreciate the post and again, I have said I am completely open on this discussion. I haven't closed my mind and posts like yours add tremendously to the discussion (and my personal knowledge) and the merits of both sides of the argument. Yes, devastating injuries like what happened to your son do happen and banning a metal bat will never change that. I have also said I am not afraid to say sometimes I don't know what I don't know. I have questions of my own concerning this topic and the answers just aren't there. I can't find them and they have yet to be provided. At least not to the point that I can sit here and say that based on evidence of 30 years of using metal bats that they are inherently more dangerous than wood.
The truth is, it isn't a black and white conversation and the emotional aspect that keeps creeping in tends to distract from what I am personally trying to understand...can anyone factually state that metal is more dangerous wood and if so, what facts do you have to definitively make that assertion?
"I work in the Aerospace industry and we do NOT calculate risk based on accidents alone...we look at "events" and physics that could have led to a catastrophe. This is how "safety" is calculated. Do you remember 737's that were crashing with little explanations (USAir - Pittsburgh, United - Colorado Springs)...the problem was discovered with physics...not by saying that 1-in-a-million 737 flights crashed so what's the problem? Your arguments based on disastrous events is not a reliable nor fair assessment."
Great point. But in the end, didn't the physics prove the danger, IE, planes crashing? To compare that to this discussion, by altering the physics (removing metal bats) shouldn't the danger disappear (devastating injures from batted balls end)? What was changed on the 737's to mitigate that future risk? Did it work? Not trying to be a smart a, just trying to understand the analogy you provided. Trying to understand cause and effect. Feel free to throw rocks.
I am not a statistical expert. Am am not a statistical anything to be perfectly honest. I just know that at some point, with as many games that are player per year with both metal and wood, there should be SOMETHING that factually indicates metal is more dangerous than wood. Give me something....ANYTHING that indicates that metal is more dangerous than wood. That is all I am asking. If it is so well known that a metal bat with the same or very similar bat exit speed of a wood bat is more dangerous, shouldn't it be fairly simple to show cause and effect after such a long period of using both metal and wood?
Lastly, I don't think it's quite fair to ask me to stop asking questions on this topic when the most simple of questions can't be and have yet to be answered. I will say we should probably chalk this up to being another topic that evokes strong emotions (no one should be surprised at that based on the topic involving our kids and potential severe injuries) that aren't necessarily rooted in fact and that is OK. We don't always get the answers we want but it isn't going to stop me from asking the questions. It's one reason I never entered the military.
quote:I sat with my son this past weekend at a D1 game while he charted pitches with a Stalker. There were a few 100mph+ readings on that gun, obviously exit speeds of balls that were smoked. The highest I saw was 107, but I swear there had to be some that were higher.
I sat with my son this past weekend and watched #1 play #8. I would have bet money the #8 ranked team screwed up and sent the football team instead of the baseball team, based on the size of these guys.
quote:So to answer; I think everything was the same except the quality and price.
I had this discussion with a friend of mine today and he insisted the MLB ball was hotter than the NCAA or HS ball. I have no idea if it is or not which is why I asked. Appreciate the answer.
1baseballdad - I appreciate the respectful response...really I do.
No intention by me to throw rocks.
I'm sleepy and I don't wanna go long on this. I'll try to make it as simple as I can.
Sometimes a catastrophic event makes you look at the physics or the science. You don't need a bunch of catastrophes...one is enough! This was the case with certain models of the 737. Good engineers looked at the problem from a 'cause-and-effect' point of view and fixed it. It was hard, and it took some time, but they did it. They didn't need to wait for 5, 10 or 50 accidents. Nor did they say, "Well, other models of airplanes crash unexpectedly too, so lets just call it 'chance' or 'bad luck.'"
More recently an Airbus 320 crashed while departing JFK (shortly after 9/11). Again, physics/science found the problem and pilots are now trained on how to not repeat it. One accident, scientific explanation...ultimately a solution.
Why would we treat our kids differently?
Pitchers get hit with batted balls. We can look at why that happens too. Sometimes its just rotten bad luck (wrong place at the wrong time...either type of bat). But we know that exit speeds of metal bats are faster (hotter) and we know why this is true (center of mass location and moment of inertia being primary) and we know that faster speed off the bat can make a big difference in reaction time and a few inches of movement by the pitcher to try and get out of the way. We know at least one way to reduce this risk (stop using metal).
If you don't believe me about the importance of center of mass and moment of inertia as they relate to bat speeed, do this one very simple experiment in your back yard. Pick up any bat by the handle. Swing it. Now put the barrel of the bat in to your hands and put the bat handle out and swing it again. Assuming it doesn't slip out of your hands, which way can you swing it faster? This (in an exaggerated way) is a very basic demonstration of a difference between a wood and metal bat and is why a metal bat can be swung faster. Moment of inertia.
So why not do this very simple thing and use wood bats...and in the process lower this risk (and improve the game, while sacrificing a few player stats)? If you don't accept or believe that faster swing speeds resulting in ball exit speeds that are faster, then we have nothing further to discuss. In that case, it would be my firm belief that you are burying you head in the sand (something I do myself sometimes...or so my kids say!)...and as I said, I am 99.99% certain, based on face-to-face conversations, that at least one major bat manufacturer knows that what I just said is true.
In any case, it seems like common sense to me. Physics/science says that the ball will travel faster off the metal bat. Its really all you need to know.
No intention by me to throw rocks.
I'm sleepy and I don't wanna go long on this. I'll try to make it as simple as I can.
Sometimes a catastrophic event makes you look at the physics or the science. You don't need a bunch of catastrophes...one is enough! This was the case with certain models of the 737. Good engineers looked at the problem from a 'cause-and-effect' point of view and fixed it. It was hard, and it took some time, but they did it. They didn't need to wait for 5, 10 or 50 accidents. Nor did they say, "Well, other models of airplanes crash unexpectedly too, so lets just call it 'chance' or 'bad luck.'"
More recently an Airbus 320 crashed while departing JFK (shortly after 9/11). Again, physics/science found the problem and pilots are now trained on how to not repeat it. One accident, scientific explanation...ultimately a solution.
Why would we treat our kids differently?
Pitchers get hit with batted balls. We can look at why that happens too. Sometimes its just rotten bad luck (wrong place at the wrong time...either type of bat). But we know that exit speeds of metal bats are faster (hotter) and we know why this is true (center of mass location and moment of inertia being primary) and we know that faster speed off the bat can make a big difference in reaction time and a few inches of movement by the pitcher to try and get out of the way. We know at least one way to reduce this risk (stop using metal).
If you don't believe me about the importance of center of mass and moment of inertia as they relate to bat speeed, do this one very simple experiment in your back yard. Pick up any bat by the handle. Swing it. Now put the barrel of the bat in to your hands and put the bat handle out and swing it again. Assuming it doesn't slip out of your hands, which way can you swing it faster? This (in an exaggerated way) is a very basic demonstration of a difference between a wood and metal bat and is why a metal bat can be swung faster. Moment of inertia.
So why not do this very simple thing and use wood bats...and in the process lower this risk (and improve the game, while sacrificing a few player stats)? If you don't accept or believe that faster swing speeds resulting in ball exit speeds that are faster, then we have nothing further to discuss. In that case, it would be my firm belief that you are burying you head in the sand (something I do myself sometimes...or so my kids say!
)...and as I said, I am 99.99% certain, based on face-to-face conversations, that at least one major bat manufacturer knows that what I just said is true.In any case, it seems like common sense to me. Physics/science says that the ball will travel faster off the metal bat. Its really all you need to know.
In an earlier post I asked what pitchers do to train, improving their ability to respond to balls hit at them. The only response so far is from 55mom which is appreciated.
I've played baseball including pitcher, catcher and outfield and fully understand the vulnerability of the pitcher. I'm not in a position to debate whether metal bats can produce harder hit balls than wood but I'll ask this question: Which scenario has basically no chance of happening. A batter hitting with wood in a metal bat game or a batter hitting with metal in a wood bat game. There is a reason.
My original question dealt with preparation and training and 55mom's point is right on the mark. A pitcher's situation is different and more complicated than the other fielders. He's completing a very complex set of skills (pitching)and then must(should) transition to another set (fielding) practically in the blink of an eye. How much time and effort is put in to getting pitchers into proper defensive positions as well as improving their ability to minimize their exposure to those devastating balls hit back at them.
I'm all for getting rid of high tech bats but that won't eliminate the problem of pitchers being hit. There needs to be an added emphasis on improving pitcher fielding skills and reaction times giving them a chance to possibly get some leather between them and the ball. Anything is better than nothing.
quote:Originally posted by 55mom:
snowman, One of the things pitchers work on is ending in a position to field a ball. The other infielders are in a ready position while the pitcher is quite vulnerable.
I've played baseball including pitcher, catcher and outfield and fully understand the vulnerability of the pitcher. I'm not in a position to debate whether metal bats can produce harder hit balls than wood but I'll ask this question: Which scenario has basically no chance of happening. A batter hitting with wood in a metal bat game or a batter hitting with metal in a wood bat game. There is a reason.
My original question dealt with preparation and training and 55mom's point is right on the mark. A pitcher's situation is different and more complicated than the other fielders. He's completing a very complex set of skills (pitching)and then must(should) transition to another set (fielding) practically in the blink of an eye. How much time and effort is put in to getting pitchers into proper defensive positions as well as improving their ability to minimize their exposure to those devastating balls hit back at them.
I'm all for getting rid of high tech bats but that won't eliminate the problem of pitchers being hit. There needs to be an added emphasis on improving pitcher fielding skills and reaction times giving them a chance to possibly get some leather between them and the ball. Anything is better than nothing.
quote:I'm all for getting rid of high tech bats but that won't eliminate the problem of pitchers being hit. There needs to be an added emphasis on improving pitcher fielding skills and reaction times giving them a chance to possibly get some leather between them and the ball. Anything is better than nothing.
When you're talking about a baseball being there that quickly, I don't feel like 'improving pitcher fielding skills" will make a difference. The nerves send a signal to the brain at 33 mph. Although that signal only has to go from the eyes to the optic nerve and then into the brain (which is of course a VERY short distance) remember that while it is traveling 33 mph, that baseball is coming at 80+ mph and it too does not have a long distance to travel.
I spent last summer interning in professional baseball. I can recall at least three incidents where I almost got hit while I was in the dugout. The first one I was standing on the top step against the rail when a line drive came our way. I think I moved a little bit, but the ball hit the top of the dugout right behind me. It came in on one side of me and out the other at a high rate of speed. Scared me pretty good. Second one I was standing in a similar spot when a hard-hit ground ball came our way. This time we were able to duck down and out of the way. The photographer was not so lucky. He was lucky in that the ball hit his camera and not him. He said people just don't understand how scary it is to see that ball coming straight at the lens like that. The third one I think really drives home the point. I was standing on the top step of the dugout nearest homeplate when a line drive was hit our way. It hit the net about 5-10 feet above my head. I didn't even move; didn't even react at all-- just stood there until long after it hit the net. One of our players (quite the smart@$$) looked up and said, "there's a game going on in case you missed it." That last one didn't even register it happened so fast.
Write your congress person. Tell them of gunner. tell them of bans in NYC
quote:Good engineers looked at the problem from a 'cause-and-effect' point of view and fixed it. It was hard, and it took some time, but they did it. They didn't need to wait for 5, 10 or 50 accidents. Nor did they say, "Well, other models of airplanes crash unexpectedly too, so lets just call it 'chance' or 'bad luck.'"
More recently an Airbus 320 crashed while departing JFK (shortly after 9/11). Again, physics/science found the problem and pilots are now trained on how to not repeat it. One accident, scientific explanation...ultimately a solution.
Funny, I had been traveling for the last two days and could hardly keep my eyes open last night when I was typing.
This is great stuff, really it is. BTW, I went back and re-read your post from last night. Kudos to you on this discussion. Unfortunately, you have earned the right to approach this discussion with nothing but raw emotion and you are doing just the opposite and again, you should be commended on that.
As to your analogy, the thing that makes me question how this pertains to treating the wood vs. metal argument is this:
Just as you equate the cause and effect above to specific aircraft, the final results released don't promise to eliminate all plane crashes, right? Most here advocating the banning of metal bats are doing just that. Not saying you are but most are. Take away metal bats and presto, problem solved (kids getting severely injured by batted balls).
To take it further and keep with the plane analogy:
What most here would advocate is that since you found issues with a particular aircraft in particular situations, all planes should be eliminated in all situations and people should be forced to take the bus or train. After all, look how many people could be saved by eliminating all all aircraft. I don't think that is reasonable.
I go back to this. If a ball batted off a metal bat has the same or very close to the same batted speed of a wood bat, how is one more dangerous than the other? I don't buy the bigger sweet spot produces more hot hits theory either since again, statistically, it hasn't proven to cause more severe injuries. If that were indeed the case, shouldn't we also ban bigger stronger hitters that are more proficient in hitting with wood since they too hold a higher risk of hitting more "hot shots", thus increasing the likelihood that one of those shots will be a come backer and hit the pitcher?
Like I said before, it seems to me that the metal bat has become an easy target that people can focus on and feel good about doing something to "help the kids" when they advocate banning it. I just wish they would take the time to drop back and look at the bigger picture. If this was to help the kids, why target something that may or may not make one bit of difference in the grand scheme of things when the one area they could focus on in all situations is the ball. I keep hearing "if this saves one kid". Well, if someone is indeed interested in "saving just one kid" then focus on the one thing that can do that and again, that is the ball OR a helmet.
Why on earth would anyone want to bring in government to touch ANYTHING about this sport when all government has done is prove they can screw up just about anything they touch. Please please please do NOT get them involved.
For those so adamant on banning metal, wouldn't it make sense to organize and pool your resources (money) to commission someone to do an in depth study on this topic? This whole debate led me to discover a site that banned together in order to protect metal bats so I know it can be done. Since there are so few studies out there that touch this topic and most are old and outdated that look at older technology, if what you say about metal is true, holding a report in your hands that proves it would make your cause a slam dunk. Until you do that, it would seem you are just spinning your wheels and asking people to "trust" that you are right instead of proving you are right.
I would be the first to line up with you if such a report existed. I have stated many times that I love wood and think it brings the game back in line with what it is supposed to be but going to the government to implement a ban on metal isn't the right approach at all. Neither is trying to ban a product for safety reasons without the facts to back up your conclusions. I honestly believe there are many exploiting the safety angle in order to try and implement their personal views of how the game should be played and we all know there are plenty of laywers who will line up and exploit the grief of parents in a tragic situation.
Was at a D1 game, ball hit 109mph back to the pitcher, knocked his glove off, the glove flew around 10 feet, the ball had enough zip left on it that it deflected to the 2nd baseman for a ground out.
Go look at college stats. Pick the current HR leaders, then see how they hit in summer wood bat leagues.
Go look at college stats. Pick the current HR leaders, then see how they hit in summer wood bat leagues.
1baseballdad,
Thanks for being the person willing to take an unpopular position in challenging the data on a really emotional topic. Without that, this discussion would be a worthless re-stating of our own consensus suspicions. Maybe I can make the argument against metal bats without throwing around condescending anecdotes:
There are a lot more data than you might think on the performance of metal bats vs. wood. And the fact is, unless you artificially de-tune them(which nobody does), then they do actually deliver more momentum transfer to the ball, which delivers more exit speed. Here's one of the better papers:
Characterizing the performance of baseball bats
Alan M. Nathana
Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801
Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 2, February 2003~Received 12 July 2002; accepted 26 September 2002
With an engineered metal bat, you can get a better-optimized combination of mass-moment-of-inertia (which does in fact increase bat speed), trampoline effect (which does increase exit speed), and broader sweet spot(which just helps you get that higher speed more often). See the Crisco-Greenwald Batting Cage study for some performance data. They found as much as 8 mph difference over a pretty broad sample. For a 100 mph batted ball, that's 8% less reaction time, and 15-17% more kinetic energy. That has to make a difference over the lifetime of exposure that a pitcher has to batted balls. Yes, I know, that's just an inference from the physics, but I think that may be the best you can really.
Because I think the problem with the statistical data you want to see (again, a reasonable thing to ask for and debate about) is that it probably can't be collected without misleading flaws. I think the trouble comes with the control groups. You would have to find a statistically-significant sample of athletes who hit hard enough, and who play enough games with both wood and metal bats. Higher performing hitters are MiLB and MLB pro's who use wooden bats. You might be able to compare a collection of college-level wood bat tournaments against the regular NCAA games, but I doubt you would end up trusting the sample size. For HS ages and below, I'm not sure the hitting is consistently hard enough.
On the de-tuning issue: You can absolutely engineer metal bats to have equivalent performance to wood, and you could absolutely spec them out in the rules just as easily as you could require wood. Its just a material properties problem, and there are enough good alloys and composites around to get it pretty close. At the core, its really not a wood vs. metal issue, its an issue of restraining the technology to keep the game safe and playable.
Thanks for being the person willing to take an unpopular position in challenging the data on a really emotional topic. Without that, this discussion would be a worthless re-stating of our own consensus suspicions. Maybe I can make the argument against metal bats without throwing around condescending anecdotes:
There are a lot more data than you might think on the performance of metal bats vs. wood. And the fact is, unless you artificially de-tune them(which nobody does), then they do actually deliver more momentum transfer to the ball, which delivers more exit speed. Here's one of the better papers:
Characterizing the performance of baseball bats
Alan M. Nathana
Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801
Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 2, February 2003~Received 12 July 2002; accepted 26 September 2002
With an engineered metal bat, you can get a better-optimized combination of mass-moment-of-inertia (which does in fact increase bat speed), trampoline effect (which does increase exit speed), and broader sweet spot(which just helps you get that higher speed more often). See the Crisco-Greenwald Batting Cage study for some performance data. They found as much as 8 mph difference over a pretty broad sample. For a 100 mph batted ball, that's 8% less reaction time, and 15-17% more kinetic energy. That has to make a difference over the lifetime of exposure that a pitcher has to batted balls. Yes, I know, that's just an inference from the physics, but I think that may be the best you can really.
Because I think the problem with the statistical data you want to see (again, a reasonable thing to ask for and debate about) is that it probably can't be collected without misleading flaws. I think the trouble comes with the control groups. You would have to find a statistically-significant sample of athletes who hit hard enough, and who play enough games with both wood and metal bats. Higher performing hitters are MiLB and MLB pro's who use wooden bats. You might be able to compare a collection of college-level wood bat tournaments against the regular NCAA games, but I doubt you would end up trusting the sample size. For HS ages and below, I'm not sure the hitting is consistently hard enough.
On the de-tuning issue: You can absolutely engineer metal bats to have equivalent performance to wood, and you could absolutely spec them out in the rules just as easily as you could require wood. Its just a material properties problem, and there are enough good alloys and composites around to get it pretty close. At the core, its really not a wood vs. metal issue, its an issue of restraining the technology to keep the game safe and playable.
Wragg arm;
Your name is great! It reminds me of the 25,000 pitches that I have thrown in the past 30 years to
hitters from Little League to Major League.
When I throw in a batting cage, I can usually tell the location of the batted ball by the angle of the bat before contact and then I can duck behind the screen 45' from the hitter.
Over the years there were two hitters that struck "fear" when they moved the bat through the strike zone. Jeff Winchester with our American team in Australia and Jeff Clements at Blair Field during the Area Code games. Both 1st round draft selections.
Winchester used metal and Clements used wood.
"There is a difference" with the "fraction of seconds" for the ball to reach the pitching screen.
Before you defend the metal bat, I ask you to throw BP to a strong HS or college hitter. You will learn the difference.
I will not pitch again in the batting cages to a hitter if he uses metal. I will not allow any of our coaches to pitch to a hitter using a metal bat.
When you throw BP a pitcher can tell "bat speed".
Once I threw BP for the SF Giants, then I retired.
Bob Williams
Your name is great! It reminds me of the 25,000 pitches that I have thrown in the past 30 years to
hitters from Little League to Major League.
When I throw in a batting cage, I can usually tell the location of the batted ball by the angle of the bat before contact and then I can duck behind the screen 45' from the hitter.
Over the years there were two hitters that struck "fear" when they moved the bat through the strike zone. Jeff Winchester with our American team in Australia and Jeff Clements at Blair Field during the Area Code games. Both 1st round draft selections.
Winchester used metal and Clements used wood.
"There is a difference" with the "fraction of seconds" for the ball to reach the pitching screen.
Before you defend the metal bat, I ask you to throw BP to a strong HS or college hitter. You will learn the difference.
I will not pitch again in the batting cages to a hitter if he uses metal. I will not allow any of our coaches to pitch to a hitter using a metal bat.
When you throw BP a pitcher can tell "bat speed".
Once I threw BP for the SF Giants, then I retired.
Bob Williams
quote:There are a lot more data than you might think on the performance of metal bats vs. wood. And the fact is, unless you artificially de-tune them(which nobody does), then they do actually deliver more momentum transfer to the ball, which delivers more exit speed. Here's one of the better papers:
Characterizing the performance of baseball bats
Alan M. Nathana
Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801
Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 2, February 2003~Received 12 July 2002; accepted 26 September 2002
That is exactly the kind of document I am looking for to help me better understand the issue. Very much appreciate it. I do wish there was something more current since the technology has changed so much since that paper was written.
You bring up some other great points as well. As I continue to educate myself on all sides of this debate, I am also coming to the conclusion that what I am asking for may not be feasible, at least to the extent of being definitive one way or another. One other factor is the fact that again, thank goodness, the type of devastating injuries as a result of a batted ball back to the pitcher (or any other player/coach) is very rare be it wood or metal. That fact doesn't really do much to ease the pain of someone struck or the family of the athlete involved though and I completely understand that.
"On the de-tuning issue: You can absolutely engineer metal bats to have equivalent performance to wood, and you could absolutely spec them out in the rules just as easily as you could require wood. It’s just a material properties problem, and there are enough good alloys and composites around to get it pretty close. At the core, its really not a wood vs. metal issue, its an issue of restraining the technology to keep the game safe and playable."
I agree 100%. I think this is exactly what the NCAA did when they banned composites and instituted the new BBCOR limits, right? I would have liked to have seen NFHS follow suit and ban the composites (the rolling issue is out of control) but they didn't and I do think that was a mistake. I know it would leave a lot of unhappy parents with $400.00 batting cage bats but I do think it was the right thing to do. As has been mentioned previously, the BESR rating had seemingly become meaningless and the bats were/are quickly getting out of hand. Self policing by the sanctioning bodies seems to have worked but we will not know until the new standards are officially in place and the players have to use bats that meet those standards.
I have mentioned several times that I personally don't want the government involved in these issues with baseball. Let me modify that by saying perhaps the THREAT of government involvement makes for a good stick to keep manufactures in line with producing bats that meet the spirit of the new rules being put in place.
Taking potential safety issues out of the equation all together, I still think it would be a good idea for everyone who feels wood is absolutely the right equipment to be using for baseball, pool their resources and work to make that change from within, even if it is something as simple as requiring wood from HS JV ball (or 14u outside of HS ball) and up. I would think that is a pretty decent compromise that would allow the little guys in the younger age groups to swing something they can handle. Metal bat manufactures still produce their bats and it gives them an opportunity to branch further out into wood as well since that market would be greatly expanded.
Just thinking out loud again.
I have to ask, respectfully, do you work for a bat manufacturer? (Yes, thats a serious question...just wondering because your arguments sound a lot like my friend who does. He also, in the same conversation will refer to the excitement of the extra home runs created by his company's bats as adding to ticket sales).
If you get past that question without getting angry at me, I would also like to ask you if you put your infant children into car seats? Because if you do, there are studies that say you're covering a minute (added) risk beyond the regular seat buckle with an expensive resolution. But I assume you value your kids enough to take that extra step. And no, that was not meant in a 'condescending' way as another poster seemed to suggest.
If you get past that question without getting angry at me, I would also like to ask you if you put your infant children into car seats? Because if you do, there are studies that say you're covering a minute (added) risk beyond the regular seat buckle with an expensive resolution. But I assume you value your kids enough to take that extra step. And no, that was not meant in a 'condescending' way as another poster seemed to suggest.
quote:Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
"On the de-tuning issue: You can absolutely engineer metal bats to have equivalent performance to wood, and you could absolutely spec them out in the rules just as easily as you could require wood.
Absolutely not!
You can not make a metal bat barrel heavy. If you tried, it would weight 10 pounds. I can't believe somebody can't envision a solid wood billet that is turned to make one end narrow and the other end wider. The end product is still 100% solid material. The end with more mass will be heavier.
If you can design a metal bat with the exact weight distribution as wood, then you would see metal barrels projecting out into the field of play because the handle would snap.
I almost smell a troll!
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:
I have to ask, respectfully, do you work for a bat manufacturer? (Yes, that's a serious question...just wondering because your arguments sound a lot like my friend who does. He also, in the same conversation will refer to the excitement of the extra home runs created by his company's bats as adding to ticket sales).
If you get past that question without getting angry at me, I would also like to ask you if you put your infant children into car seats? Because if you do, there are studies that say you're covering a minute (added) risk beyond the regular seat buckle with an expensive resolution. But I assume you value your kids enough to take that extra step. And no, that was not meant in a 'condescending' way as another poster seemed to suggest.
I think your question is very fair. No, I don't work for a bat manufacturer nor do I have any financial stake in any of them. Don't own stock, have absolutely zero dog in the fight from that perspective. The only dog I have in this fight is the fact that my son plays ball.
I actually work in technology. If you want to talk about cloud computing, SAN technology or Blade servers, converged fabric and FCoE, I would be happy to have a long and drawn out discussion that would make that last paper that was referenced look down right exciting.
As to the car seat analogy, I don't think it quite compares. I am not being asked to choose between one car seat manufacture or the other to mitigate that risk. We have made it clear that pitchers and players face a risk of getting hit when a ball comes off wood or metal (equate that to a child riding in the car in the first place). What hasn't been demonstrated is if metal poses a greater risk over wood. As I said before, now I am not really sure you can even do that. Maybe it can be done but maybe not.
I have pretty thick skin and I happen to think these questions are all good ones that challenge me to try and look at the issue from many different perspectives. It's good all around.
quote:I almost smell a troll!
Then I might suggest a good ear nose and throat specialist.
quote:I have pretty thick skin and I happen to think these questions are all good ones that challenge me to try and look at the issue from many different perspectives. It's good all around.
DITTO THAT.
Heck JUST , I don't even get angry at you.
I am a member of the Anti Knee Jerk Reaction Society. Show me the evidence and I will agree with you.
Do your son's still play ball after that terrible accident ?
Child car seats are there to protect kids that rely on others to protect them. It is the law here.
quote:What hasn't been demonstrated is if metal poses a greater risk over wood. As I said before, now I am not really sure you can even do that. Maybe it can be done but maybe not.
It is so interesting how you continue to ask this question over and over and over again when one study showed more injuries with metal than wood for college players, even though the ones in the study did not include the vast majority of the best college hitters using metal.
It is also intriguing that you have yet to address and respond to the issue/question of whether it actually is the bat manufacturers responsibility to test and study and show there is no difference. Quite clearly bat manufacturers, other than funding the one study, have never done such a study or supported having one independently performed. To my knowledge, the one study where they provided funding strongly recommended more follow up and further study and they didn't follow those recommendations.
You are a very, very good and articulate and knowledgeable poster on this topic.
You can subtly suggest you only deal in facts and those who advocate for change are either emotional, politically motivated or both.
Isn't one reason for the change in standards in 2012 to lower the "risk" or is it just altruistic by the NCAA and manufacturers?
quote:It is so interesting how you continue to ask this question over and over and over again when one study showed more injuries with metal than wood for college players, even though the ones in the study did not include the vast majority of the best college hitters using metal.
It is also intriguing that you have yet to address and respond to the issue/question of whether it actually is the bat manufacturers responsibility to test and study and show there is no difference.
OK, are you referring to the study that indicated there were more bumps and bruises in metal games but more serious head injuries from wood? Is that the study you referenced?
The second question is pretty clear as well. The standards are set (NOT by the manufactures) and yes, according to the standards, it IS the responsibility of the manufactures to go through the testing process, at their own expense, in order to get the certification that allows their bats to be sold. Why on earth wouldn't it be the responsibility of the manufactures to prove their bats comply with the rules? I have no idea why you asked that but I hope I cleared it up.
YOU keep referring to a study by the bat manufactures. Specifically what is it about that study that you disagree with? What specific methodology are you questioning as it pertains to the results of that study? Or are you just discounting it before reading it because bat manufactures kicked in for some of the cost or even all of the cost?
Can you tell me what nefarious plot the NFHS is involved in since they funded the study in Illinois that indicated there was no statistical difference in the number of serious injuries as it pertains to games played with wood vs metal?
http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/news/nfhsBAbats07.htm
I guess this is really going to tick off some people.
Wellesley Little League returns to metal bats
Cites study that shows wood may be no safer
By Matt Rocheleau, Globe Correspondent | November 25, 2009
The Wellesley Little League has decided to abandon wood bats and return to metal bats, eight years after a severe head injury suffered by a Wellesley High pitcher led several leagues in the region to switch because, according to some, balls don’t come off wooden bats quite as fast.
Wellesley Little League officials made the move back to the metal bats after learning that some specialists believe neither bat type is safer than the other, said the league’s safety commissioner, Patrick Doyle. The league’s board voted unanimously in September to allow metal bats for the 2010 season, hoping the players, aged 12 and younger, would have more fun hitting with the new bats.
“The overriding reason was to afford the kids a better Little League experience,’’ said Doyle. “[With wood bats,] if you don’t hit the ball on the sweet spot of the bat . . . the bats in many cases break, and the ball doesn’t go anywhere. The kids don’t have that feeling of achievement like they did anything.’’
Metal bats are often made of aluminum, and some players like them because they are generally lighter so the player has a faster bat speed. Many Little Leagues use metal bats, but the debate over metal vs. wood has still continued at many levels of baseball, sparked in part by the Wellesley case.
The ban was initiated in 2002 after a line drive off an aluminum bat struck Wellesley High sophomore Bill Hughto in the head during the 2001 season. The impact severed an artery, causing a dangerous blood clot on Hughto’s brain. He spent five days in the hospital and recovered, but later stopped playing baseball.
After the accident, Hughto’s father and other parents called for a switch to wooden bats. The Wellesley Little League and the Bay State Conference, which includes Wellesley High School and 11 other area schools, banned aluminum bats the following season and have used wood ever since.
The pitcher’s father said he is surprised and angered that the town’s Little League would reverse its move to wood bats.
“[Aluminum] bats hit the ball harder, so those kids are in greater peril,’’ said Richard Hughto, an environmental consultant from Wellesley. “They’re deciding to put some kids in danger so some kids can get more hits . . . [With aluminum bats,] players will hit the ball more often and the good hitters will hit it that much harder’’ toward the pitcher’s mound, which is 46 feet from home plate as opposed to 60.5 feet from home in professional baseball.
Nearby Natick is one of a handful of Little Leagues in Massachusetts that use wood bats.
State Representative David Linsky, a Natick Democrat who spent 10 years coaching a Natick Little League travel team, said the league moved from aluminum to wood nearly two decades ago primarily because of safety concerns, but also because “the kids learn to be better hitters.’’
“In Natick, we view wooden bats as a safety issue, and we think it makes for a better game,’’ he said. “It takes more skill to get a hit with a wooden bat than a metal bat.’’
In explaining their decision to return to aluminum, the Wellesley Little League subcommittee cited a 2007 report from Little League International that found the speeds at which a ball leaves a wood vs. a metal bat after contact are roughly the same.
“We basically say that for the most part, they are pretty even,’’ said Steve Barr, spokesman for Pennsylvania-based Little League International.
Also, aluminum advocates point to records that show since the early 1960s, six of the eight fatalities in Little League were from balls struck by wood bats. The two metal bat fatalities occurred in 1971 and 1973, before implementation of modern youth bat standards.
However, injury and fatality rates increase for players after the Little League level because the older players throw faster and hit harder. A Montana family sued Louisville Slugger and won $850,000 last month, according to the Associated Press, for the 2003 death of their 18-year-old son in an American Legion baseball game after he was hit by a line drive off an aluminum bat.
The league’s officials feel that injuries are a rare, unfortunate reality of any sport, Doyle said, though they try to prevent injuries. He said they are also cautious not to become so safety-conscious that it takes away from the whole reason for playing the sport.
Additionally, the metal bats, which do not break like wood bats, have an average useable lifespan of two to three years, and though they cost more up front, they can be more cost-efficient in the long run.
However, “cost was a very, very minimal concern of ours,’’ said Doyle.
http://www.boston.com/news/loc...o_metal_bats?mode=PF
Wellesley Little League returns to metal bats
Cites study that shows wood may be no safer
By Matt Rocheleau, Globe Correspondent | November 25, 2009
The Wellesley Little League has decided to abandon wood bats and return to metal bats, eight years after a severe head injury suffered by a Wellesley High pitcher led several leagues in the region to switch because, according to some, balls don’t come off wooden bats quite as fast.
Wellesley Little League officials made the move back to the metal bats after learning that some specialists believe neither bat type is safer than the other, said the league’s safety commissioner, Patrick Doyle. The league’s board voted unanimously in September to allow metal bats for the 2010 season, hoping the players, aged 12 and younger, would have more fun hitting with the new bats.
“The overriding reason was to afford the kids a better Little League experience,’’ said Doyle. “[With wood bats,] if you don’t hit the ball on the sweet spot of the bat . . . the bats in many cases break, and the ball doesn’t go anywhere. The kids don’t have that feeling of achievement like they did anything.’’
Metal bats are often made of aluminum, and some players like them because they are generally lighter so the player has a faster bat speed. Many Little Leagues use metal bats, but the debate over metal vs. wood has still continued at many levels of baseball, sparked in part by the Wellesley case.
The ban was initiated in 2002 after a line drive off an aluminum bat struck Wellesley High sophomore Bill Hughto in the head during the 2001 season. The impact severed an artery, causing a dangerous blood clot on Hughto’s brain. He spent five days in the hospital and recovered, but later stopped playing baseball.
After the accident, Hughto’s father and other parents called for a switch to wooden bats. The Wellesley Little League and the Bay State Conference, which includes Wellesley High School and 11 other area schools, banned aluminum bats the following season and have used wood ever since.
The pitcher’s father said he is surprised and angered that the town’s Little League would reverse its move to wood bats.
“[Aluminum] bats hit the ball harder, so those kids are in greater peril,’’ said Richard Hughto, an environmental consultant from Wellesley. “They’re deciding to put some kids in danger so some kids can get more hits . . . [With aluminum bats,] players will hit the ball more often and the good hitters will hit it that much harder’’ toward the pitcher’s mound, which is 46 feet from home plate as opposed to 60.5 feet from home in professional baseball.
Nearby Natick is one of a handful of Little Leagues in Massachusetts that use wood bats.
State Representative David Linsky, a Natick Democrat who spent 10 years coaching a Natick Little League travel team, said the league moved from aluminum to wood nearly two decades ago primarily because of safety concerns, but also because “the kids learn to be better hitters.’’
“In Natick, we view wooden bats as a safety issue, and we think it makes for a better game,’’ he said. “It takes more skill to get a hit with a wooden bat than a metal bat.’’
In explaining their decision to return to aluminum, the Wellesley Little League subcommittee cited a 2007 report from Little League International that found the speeds at which a ball leaves a wood vs. a metal bat after contact are roughly the same.
“We basically say that for the most part, they are pretty even,’’ said Steve Barr, spokesman for Pennsylvania-based Little League International.
Also, aluminum advocates point to records that show since the early 1960s, six of the eight fatalities in Little League were from balls struck by wood bats. The two metal bat fatalities occurred in 1971 and 1973, before implementation of modern youth bat standards.
However, injury and fatality rates increase for players after the Little League level because the older players throw faster and hit harder. A Montana family sued Louisville Slugger and won $850,000 last month, according to the Associated Press, for the 2003 death of their 18-year-old son in an American Legion baseball game after he was hit by a line drive off an aluminum bat.
The league’s officials feel that injuries are a rare, unfortunate reality of any sport, Doyle said, though they try to prevent injuries. He said they are also cautious not to become so safety-conscious that it takes away from the whole reason for playing the sport.
Additionally, the metal bats, which do not break like wood bats, have an average useable lifespan of two to three years, and though they cost more up front, they can be more cost-efficient in the long run.
However, “cost was a very, very minimal concern of ours,’’ said Doyle.
http://www.boston.com/news/loc...o_metal_bats?mode=PF