Just to bring up the issue of wood v. other material one more time.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin...all-Bat-Lawsuit.html
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:A spokesman for the legendary bat-maker said Wednesday the company did nothing wrong and the verdict ''appears to be an indictment of the entire sport of baseball.''
Nonsense!
I'd wait for the appeal before rejoicing ?
It's about time!
I'm very sorry for their loss...With a number of other suits pending & awarded recently, maybe HS's, Colleges & other leagues will wake up.
Cost of wood vs. alum. is a lame excuse. A young mans' life is worth more than this or any jury award!
I'm very sorry for their loss...With a number of other suits pending & awarded recently, maybe HS's, Colleges & other leagues will wake up.
Cost of wood vs. alum. is a lame excuse. A young mans' life is worth more than this or any jury award!
So what happens when a pitcher gets drilled with a wood bat? Will wood bats be banned? Will baseball be turned into wiffle ball? My son has been hit in the head by a batted ball once. It came off a wood bat in 18U ball. Maybe 18U ball should be banned because the players hit the ball so hard. Or maybe pitchers mounds should have screens in front of them. Maybe players should wear bubble wrap for uniforms.
I would prefer baseball return to wood. But I don't want it to be at the hands of the government banning metal. The government is in our lives way too much already.
Interesting government help information of the day: The Cash for Clunkers Program helped Hyundai pass Chrysler in car sales in the United States. So much for the intention of the program helping the American auto industry.
I would prefer baseball return to wood. But I don't want it to be at the hands of the government banning metal. The government is in our lives way too much already.
Interesting government help information of the day: The Cash for Clunkers Program helped Hyundai pass Chrysler in car sales in the United States. So much for the intention of the program helping the American auto industry.
You can provide all the conjecture and assumptions you want. Statistically, from an accident standpoint, there's no evidence metal bats are more dangerous than wood bats.quote:Originally posted by baseballmom:
It's about time!
I'm very sorry for their loss...With a number of other suits pending & awarded recently, maybe HS's, Colleges & other leagues will wake up.
Cost of wood vs. alum. is a lame excuse. A young mans' life is worth more than this or any jury award!
Note: This is not a pro metal statement. So please don't start the debate. It's a statement of fact.
I can't see this decision holding up under appeal.
What share in the blame do coaches, parents etc share in the blame ? There are just too many implications when you are playing a sport that has dangers inherent in the game.
The parents and the players are very aware of the risks. It is a horrible outcome but we are all aware of what could happen. The difference between metal and wood may have had a small part in the accident but I can't see it materially affecting the out come.
What share in the blame do coaches, parents etc share in the blame ? There are just too many implications when you are playing a sport that has dangers inherent in the game.
The parents and the players are very aware of the risks. It is a horrible outcome but we are all aware of what could happen. The difference between metal and wood may have had a small part in the accident but I can't see it materially affecting the out come.
Are you saying that metal bats and wood bats are the same RJM? I wouldn't think anybody would agree with that assumption.
RJM,
Son was hit in the face, fractured orbital, fractured jaw, broken nose. Age 15, just before Junior Olympics... So, I'm aware of the dangers , esp. of metal bats.
No debate from me...just do NOT see any reason for metal bats in baseball.
I'll have to search awhile, but there is evidence to the contrary, compiled in New York ...I'll look for it....
Son was hit in the face, fractured orbital, fractured jaw, broken nose. Age 15, just before Junior Olympics... So, I'm aware of the dangers , esp. of metal bats.
No debate from me...just do NOT see any reason for metal bats in baseball.
I'll have to search awhile, but there is evidence to the contrary, compiled in New York ...I'll look for it....
quote:Originally posted by RJM:
So what happens when a pitcher gets drilled with a wood bat? Will wood bats be banned? Will baseball be turned into wiffle ball? My son has been hit in the head by a batted ball once. It came off a wood bat in 18U ball.
My son was hit square in the face off a wood bat. There is no doubt it can happen. The issue is whether or not the added risk, added velocity at impact resulting in added energy and the likliehood of incidence due to reduced reaction time caused by the metal bats is worth it. It is not. It is geared towards selling expensive bats to parents who want to see little Johnny hit more home runs in LL and HS. The college use of it is mostly for promotional purposes since most D1's get the bats for free anyways.
My son's accident was reported in some national publications since it happened in Cape Cod. As a result, at least one of the major metal bat manufacturers told me they were using his accident with this argument in legislatures to say, "SEE! Its not metal bats." Since they volunteerd (in a happy, 'Hah! We got em' sort of way') the information to me, I demanded that they stop.
Can you read? Read it again.quote:Originally posted by Doughnutman:
Are you saying that metal bats and wood bats are the same RJM? I wouldn't think anybody would agree with that assumption.
"You can provide all the conjecture and assumptions you want. Statistically, from an accident standpoint, there's no evidence metal bats are more dangerous than wood bats. Note: This is not a pro metal statement. So please don't start the debate. It's a statement of fact."
NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE METAL IS MORE DANGEROUS
The decision was a legal hearing. Not a chatboard debate. The evidence metal bats are more dangerous does not exist. The jury decision had to be completely emotional.
I'll repeat my disclaimer for those who can read to avoid further similar questions ...
Note: This is not a pro metal statement. So please don't start the debate. It's a statement of fact. The accident statistics do not back metal bats are more dangerous. That they are would be conjecture.
OK, didn't mean to pi$$ you off RJM.
Have you ever heard the phrase,"There are liars, da!@ liars and statistics."
Have you ever heard the phrase,"There are liars, da!@ liars and statistics."
There isn't a lot reported on the actual theory and evidence from my Google search.
But, there is a bit. Let's try this without emotion.
When any of us attend a MLB/MILB game, we know we can be hit by batted balls. Happens far too often with so little screening to promote better visibility.
If you attend a game in Japan, they have netting to protect nearly all the fans.
Why don't lawsuits work against MILB/MLB for foul balls and line drives that strike customers?
It is because you are warned and the Courts have said the warning is adequate and customer assumes the risk for foul balls based on that warning.(Check the back of your ticket..the warning is there.) That warning protects the team/ownership.
Recently, we have started to see bats flying into the stands. Warning changed and expanded now to flying objects. Warning determined to be adequate.
The theory reported on this case is that the metal bat manufacturer had a duty to warn of the dangers known to the manufacturer from the use of metal bats.
The jury is reported to have found the bat manufacturer had a duty to warn of the dangers and failed to warn, in an adequate way, of the known and/or forseeable risk of injury from the use of metal bats.
The bat manufacturer could put the warning on the bat the way the ownership of clubs and stadiums have put warnings on tickets. To date, they have chosen not to do so. If they choose to do so, they likely can be protected from liability.
But, there is a bit. Let's try this without emotion.
When any of us attend a MLB/MILB game, we know we can be hit by batted balls. Happens far too often with so little screening to promote better visibility.
If you attend a game in Japan, they have netting to protect nearly all the fans.
Why don't lawsuits work against MILB/MLB for foul balls and line drives that strike customers?
It is because you are warned and the Courts have said the warning is adequate and customer assumes the risk for foul balls based on that warning.(Check the back of your ticket..the warning is there.) That warning protects the team/ownership.
Recently, we have started to see bats flying into the stands. Warning changed and expanded now to flying objects. Warning determined to be adequate.
The theory reported on this case is that the metal bat manufacturer had a duty to warn of the dangers known to the manufacturer from the use of metal bats.
The jury is reported to have found the bat manufacturer had a duty to warn of the dangers and failed to warn, in an adequate way, of the known and/or forseeable risk of injury from the use of metal bats.
The bat manufacturer could put the warning on the bat the way the ownership of clubs and stadiums have put warnings on tickets. To date, they have chosen not to do so. If they choose to do so, they likely can be protected from liability.
RJM - Sorry, but you're just wrong.
I read one of the reports conducted for the NCAA a couple of years ago. At that time, it was on the internet. I don't know if it still is. It was scientific and it was based on testing and it was sound.
I don't have the time to re-find it for you. You can choose to not believe me, I really don't care. But it does not change the results of the tests nor the facts.
I read one of the reports conducted for the NCAA a couple of years ago. At that time, it was on the internet. I don't know if it still is. It was scientific and it was based on testing and it was sound.
I don't have the time to re-find it for you. You can choose to not believe me, I really don't care. But it does not change the results of the tests nor the facts.
NO, YOU ARE WRONG. You can test all you want. On the field of play accident statistics do not bear out metal is more dangerous than wood. The accident in the court case happened on the field of play, not in a testing lab. What you may see if this case is not tossed on appeal is warnings placed on metal and wood bats, baseballs, cleats, bases and possibly the fence around the field of play. Another thing you will see is the cost of these products increase.
What is misleading is how BESR and BPF ratings determine bat safety. The test is flawed. But still, the accident statistics are what they are.
Note: This post is not a pro metal statement. So please don't start the debate. It's a statement of fact. The accident statistics do not back metal bats are more dangerous. That they are would be conjecture.
What is misleading is how BESR and BPF ratings determine bat safety. The test is flawed. But still, the accident statistics are what they are.
Note: This post is not a pro metal statement. So please don't start the debate. It's a statement of fact. The accident statistics do not back metal bats are more dangerous. That they are would be conjecture.
The energy translated, the damage that can be done...greater. The exit velocity, greater...resulting in greater energy and reduced reaction time.
Thats really what this case was about.
Thats really what this case was about.
According to one news account, the bat manufacturer made that exact argument, RJM, in support of having the case dismissed without a trial.
"Attorneys for Hillerich & Bradsby, manufacturers of the Louisville Slugger bat used to hit Patch's fateful pitch, contend that accidents are bound to happen in baseball games and there's nothing inherently unsafe about aluminum baseball bats.
"This bat did what was expected of it. There's no showing it did anything different," attorney Rob Sterup told Judge Kathy Seeley on Wednesday in an unsuccessful effort to get the case dismissed."
Since the judge ruled against them, the plaintiff's had to have produced expert evidence that convinced both the judge and ultimately a jury that there was a recognizable risk, with metal bats, that required the duty to warn.
"Attorneys for Hillerich & Bradsby, manufacturers of the Louisville Slugger bat used to hit Patch's fateful pitch, contend that accidents are bound to happen in baseball games and there's nothing inherently unsafe about aluminum baseball bats.
"This bat did what was expected of it. There's no showing it did anything different," attorney Rob Sterup told Judge Kathy Seeley on Wednesday in an unsuccessful effort to get the case dismissed."
Since the judge ruled against them, the plaintiff's had to have produced expert evidence that convinced both the judge and ultimately a jury that there was a recognizable risk, with metal bats, that required the duty to warn.
Google Jack MacKay ( former bat engineer for Louisville Slugger )
Wow. RJM, you would have made a good spokesman for Big Tobacco. After all, for decades there was no statistical evidence that cigarettes are harmful. Statistics are the most pliable and misused metric of all. Bats capable of producing high baseball exit speeds need to be banned. PERIOD.
So let's resort to personal attack and ignore the statistics. Is that the game you want to play? I can play that game is you want to continue. When juries start making uninformed decisions because it feels good our court system is in trouble. I'm trying to look at the decision with intelligence, not emotion. I wish you could read ....quote:Originally posted by brute66:
Wow. RJM, you would have made a good spokesman for Big Tobacco. After all, for decades there was no statistical evidence that cigarettes are harmful. Statistics are the most pliable and misused metric of all. Bats capable of producing high baseball exit speeds need to be banned. PERIOD.
"Note: This post is not a pro metal statement. So please don't start the debate. It's a statement of fact. The accident statistics do not back metal bats are more dangerous. That they are would be conjecture."
Note: This post is not a pro metal statement. So please don't start the debate. It's a statement of fact. The accident statistics do not back metal bats are more dangerous. That they are would be conjecture.
Ignore the physics though, right?
Who is supposed to ban the bats? You have a choice. You can choose not to let your son play baseball. Or you can choose to only let him play in games with wood bats. However, if you read the entire thread you will see wood bats don't guarantee safety either.quote:Originally posted by brute66:
Wow. RJM, you would have made a good spokesman for Big Tobacco. After all, for decades there was no statistical evidence that cigarettes are harmful. Statistics are the most pliable and misused metric of all. Bats capable of producing high baseball exit speeds need to be banned. PERIOD.
quote:The energy translated, the damage that can be done...greater. The exit velocity, greater...resulting in greater energy and reduced reaction time.
In that case then...ban any player that can bench press over 300 lbs...it has been shown that stronger players hit the ball harder resulting in greater energy and reduced reaction time....
RJM,
Don't be surprised at personal attacks when you have already started the process in your earlier posts.
"Can you read? Read it again." and "I'll repeat my disclaimer for those who can read to avoid further similar questions ...""NO, YOU ARE WRONG"
Statements like this and using all caps are forms of personal attacks.
If you do not wish to be addressed this way then you shouldn't address others the same way.
And I am not a lawyer, but I could beat the statistical defense in a heartbeat by using the info that is easily obtained about non wood bats.
Especially since the bat companies knew about the bats being hotter than wood and never warned anyone about it.
Don't be surprised at personal attacks when you have already started the process in your earlier posts.
"Can you read? Read it again." and "I'll repeat my disclaimer for those who can read to avoid further similar questions ...""NO, YOU ARE WRONG"
Statements like this and using all caps are forms of personal attacks.
If you do not wish to be addressed this way then you shouldn't address others the same way.
And I am not a lawyer, but I could beat the statistical defense in a heartbeat by using the info that is easily obtained about non wood bats.
Especially since the bat companies knew about the bats being hotter than wood and never warned anyone about it.
RJM said: "So let's resort to personal attack and ignore the statistics. Is that the game you want to play? I can play that game is you want to continue. I wish you could read ...."
Yes, you established these ground rules several posts ago.
RJM, I'm sure you can read. What you should attempt to do is comprehend. What this boils down to is not an indictment of aluminum per se as a bat material. It is about dramatically higher exit speeds in the last 20 years than were possible in the 150 years of baseball before that.
Yes, you established these ground rules several posts ago.
RJM, I'm sure you can read. What you should attempt to do is comprehend. What this boils down to is not an indictment of aluminum per se as a bat material. It is about dramatically higher exit speeds in the last 20 years than were possible in the 150 years of baseball before that.
quote:Originally posted by RJM:
So what happens when a pitcher gets drilled with a wood bat? Will wood bats be banned? Will baseball be turned into wiffle ball? My son has been hit in the head by a batted ball once. It came off a wood bat in 18U ball. Maybe 18U ball should be banned because the players hit the ball so hard. Or maybe pitchers mounds should have screens in front of them. Maybe players should wear bubble wrap for uniforms.
I would prefer baseball return to wood. But I don't want it to be at the hands of the government banning metal. The government is in our lives way too much already.
Interesting government help information of the day: The Cash for Clunkers Program helped Hyundai pass Chrysler in car sales in the United States. So much for the intention of the program helping the American auto industry.
I would argue that younger kids 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 year olds dont have the reflexes or the proper mechanical knowhow that say an 18 or 20 year old would have.
Companies that make metal or composite bats all try and push the limits of technology to make the bats as hot as possible.
Look at any advertisement for a new metal bat and what do you see the bat company talking about. Our bats are made with this metal mixture, which suggest more pop, the ball jumps off our bats more than the leading competitors and so on.
Every bat engineer out there is trying to come up with a way to make the bats hotter while still meeting so called safety standards.
You cant tell me metal/composite bats are not getting hotter. I know 10 year olds hitting 250 to 280 foot shots. 10 years ago you would have never seen that and whats really changed in youth baseball in the last 10 years. The only thing that comes to my mind is the equipment.
as a father of a pitcher, my gut tells me I would prefer he throw to wood bats-and play baseball as it should be.- not pipeball!
no science here-just a dad's intuition that makes me feel he would have a better reaction time to protect himself.
(that- and the fact that a lot of pipe hits would be ground outs to short
!)
no science here-just a dad's intuition that makes me feel he would have a better reaction time to protect himself.
(that- and the fact that a lot of pipe hits would be ground outs to short
!)quote:"NO, YOU ARE WRONG"
It was my uncivil response to a poster uncivily telling me I was wrong. The poster should have posted "I disagee. Here's why." I treated her with the same lack of respect she directed my way.
quote:In that case then...ban any player that can bench press over 300 lbs...it has been shown that stronger players hit the ball harder resulting in greater energy and reduced reaction time....
Yeah, lets do that.
Love these types of arguments.
I would not begin to disagree with you. But this does not change the accident statistics showing there have not been more accidents with metal than wood (obviously pro rated for amount of use). To argue the pop in the bat would be making an assumption the accident statistics not back. It's an assumption of logic, not fact.quote:You cant tell me metal/composite bats are not getting hotter.
Note: This post is not a pro metal statement. So please don't start the debate. It's a statement of fact. The accident statistics do not back metal bats are more dangerous. That they are would be conjecture.
Ignore the statistics of more than ample sampling as it directly relates to the case?quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:
Ignore the physics though, right?
quote:Originally posted by RJM:I would not begin to disagree with you. But this does not change the accident statistics showing there have not been more accidents with metal than wood (obviously pro rated for amount of use). To argue the pop in the bat would be making an assumption the accident statistics not back. It's an assumption of logic, not fact.quote:You cant tell me metal/composite bats are not getting hotter.
Note: This post is not a pro metal statement. So please don't start the debate. It's a statement of fact. The accident statistics do not back metal bats are more dangerous. That they are would be conjecture.
I cant really state any facts about stats for injury wood vs metal. However I can state that I have seen these bats get hotter year after year from personal observation.
There was a 9 year old here in Florida that my son plays against that had his whole face shattered pitching. The amazing thing is this kid is now right back on the mound pitching again with a face mask after only a year.
quote:Yeah, lets do that.
Love these types of arguments.
Yes, it's facetious..but no more so than to suggest a warning label would have prevented the tragedy...
Players today are bigger, stronger, and better trained than a generation ago and have access to 'hotter' equipment....it's a multi-dimensional problem....
The problem with the statistical defense is wide and varied. I don't have all of the problems in my head(it has been 20 years since I had a stat course) but a few of the problems are:
who collected the raw data. What did they exclude or include. What connections do they have to the people that paid for the stats, where did they get their info, etc...
Next is the interpretation of the data after it has been collected(filtered, what parameters did they impose) It is very easy and normal to have 5 people interpret the same data 5 different ways.
Stats are great for misleading people. They are used this way everyday.
Plus my son hit a 420+ HR this summer. No way he can do that with a wood bat. No way.
who collected the raw data. What did they exclude or include. What connections do they have to the people that paid for the stats, where did they get their info, etc...
Next is the interpretation of the data after it has been collected(filtered, what parameters did they impose) It is very easy and normal to have 5 people interpret the same data 5 different ways.
Stats are great for misleading people. They are used this way everyday.
Plus my son hit a 420+ HR this summer. No way he can do that with a wood bat. No way.
quote:Originally posted by Doughnutman:
The problem with the statistical defense is wide and varied. I don't have all of the problems in my head(it has been 20 years since I had a stat course) but a few of the problems are:
who collected the raw data. What did they exclude or include. What connections do they have to the people that paid for the stats, where did they get their info, etc...
Next is the interpretation of the data after it has been collected(filtered, what parameters did they impose) It is very easy and normal to have 5 people interpret the same data 5 different ways.
Stats are great for misleading people. They are used this way everyday.
Plus my son hit a 420+ HR this summer. No way he can do that with a wood bat. No way.
Most of the research data is collected or funded by the bat manufacturers. Thats like asking the fox to count how many chickens are in the coop each night before you go to bed.
"In that case then...ban any player that can bench press over 300 lbs...it has been shown that stronger players hit the ball harder resulting in greater energy and reduced reaction time...."
Seems like a player like that should be able to get the job done with a wood bat...unless he needs a cheater stick to cover for a lack of skill. In that case he should be on the bench.
Seems like a player like that should be able to get the job done with a wood bat...unless he needs a cheater stick to cover for a lack of skill. In that case he should be on the bench.
.
Thuff shickens? Whuff shickens? There whuff no shickens. Trush...burp... me!
.
Thuff shickens? Whuff shickens? There whuff no shickens. Trush...burp... me!
.
The stats I once saw were accumulated by the NFHS. I'll bet USA Baseball has the data too. You can be assured every time there's a serious injury in a youth sports event paperwork is filled out and filed for potential liability purposes. My son learned in 7th grade never take an ice bag. It means paperwork and removal from the game.quote:Originally posted by OCB:quote:Originally posted by Doughnutman:
The problem with the statistical defense is wide and varied. I don't have all of the problems in my head(it has been 20 years since I had a stat course) but a few of the problems are:
who collected the raw data. What did they exclude or include. What connections do they have to the people that paid for the stats, where did they get their info, etc...
Next is the interpretation of the data after it has been collected(filtered, what parameters did they impose) It is very easy and normal to have 5 people interpret the same data 5 different ways.
Stats are great for misleading people. They are used this way everyday.
Plus my son hit a 420+ HR this summer. No way he can do that with a wood bat. No way.
Most of the research data is collected or funded by the bat manufacturers. Thats like asking the fox to count how many chickens are in the coop each night before you go to bed.
It was a study ran by a baseball org. Red flags everywhere. In who's best interest is it to say that non wood bats are safe?
Baseball org's. They would be liable. Hotter bats mean more kids playing which means more money.
Baseball org's. They would be liable. Hotter bats mean more kids playing which means more money.
How do you know it wouldn't have happened with a wood bat. I'm not debating the pop off the bat. But every response to this case I've seen has been emotional and assumptive, not factual.quote:There was a 9 year old here in Florida that my son plays against that had his whole face shattered pitching.