Skip to main content

140 replies

Little League and AL

biggerpapibiggerpapi5,000+ posts
This is from a Little League International bulletin I received yesterday:

The Youth Committee of USA Baseball today issued the statement below regarding non-wood bats.
 
Little League International is a member, along with other youth organizations, of USA Baseball. Little League also holds a seat on the USA Baseball Board of Directors.
 
USA Baseball often coordinates research that affects all youth baseball organizations. For example, USA Baseball was instrumental in the recent change to the league age determination date by all youth baseball organizations.
 
-----
 
USA Baseball, the National Governing Body (NGB) for the sport of baseball as designated by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, recently held a meeting of its National Youth Membership, and on behalf of the following organizations has released the following statement:
 
1. American Amateur Baseball Congress (AABC)
2. American Legion Baseball
3. Dixie Baseball
4. Little League Baseball, Inc.
5. Babe Ruth Baseball
6. PONY Baseball
7. National Amateur Baseball Federation (NABF)
8. National Baseball Congress / Hap Dumont Baseball
9. Amateur Athletic Union (AAU)
10. United States Sports Specialties Association (USSSA)
11. National Police Athletic League (PAL)
12. T-Ball USA
 
PERCEPTION:   Aluminum bats are more dangerous than wood bats.
 
The National Consumer Product Safety Commission studied this issue and concluded in 2002 that there is no evidence to suggest that aluminum bats pose any greater risk than wood bats. Multiple amateur baseball governing bodies, including the NCAA, National High School Federation, Little League International, PONY, et al, all track safety statistics and have concluded that aluminum bats do not pose a safety risk.
 
PERCEPTION:   Balls come off aluminum bats faster than wood.
 
Since 2003, all bats are required to meet the “Bat Exit Speed Ratio” (BESR) performance limitation, which ensures that aluminum bats do not hit the ball any harder than the best wood bats.
 
PERCEPTION:   Injuries from aluminum bats are more severe than with wood bats.
 
Two out of the three deaths from a batted ball in the last decade came from wood bats. Dr. Frederick Mueller, Director of the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research, has indicated from his studies that catastrophic injuries from wood bats may be more frequent than aluminum bats.
 
PERCEPTION:   The Brown University study proves that aluminum bats hit the ball harder than wood bats.
 
This study is irrelevant by today’s standards. All of the bats used in the Brown study would not be allowed to be used today, because they do not meet the BESR standard.
 
PERCEPTION:   The use of aluminum bats places children at an unacceptable risk of injury.
 
A study from the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research shows that there have been only 15 catastrophic batted ball injuries to pitchers out of more than 9,500,000 high school and college participants since 1982.
 
During the last five years a number of states, individual organizations, city councils, and others have proposed the banning of metal baseball bats on a number of different levels.  These actions have typically been in reaction to a catastrophic injury as opposed to being based on creditable injury data or research.  In May of 2002 the Consumer Product Safety Commission stated, “The Commission is not aware of any information that injuries produced by balls batted with non-wood bats are more severe than those involving wood bats”.  This statement was true in 2002 and it is true in 2007.
 
The Medical/Safety Advisory Committee of USA Baseball was initiated due to the lack of injury data needed to make decisions affecting the safety of baseball participants. Prior to 2005 there has not been significant research comparing injuries to baseball pitchers from metal bats versus wood bats.  In 2005 the USA Baseball Medical/Safety Committee initiated a three year research project comparing line drive baseball injuries to pitchers from metal bats and wood bats.  Metal bat injury data were taken from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Injury Surveillance System and wood bat injury data collected from college summer leagues (NCAA recognized college summer league teams all use wood bats).
 
After two years (2005 and 2006) of collecting batted ball injury data to the pitcher from 93 NCAA college baseball teams and 246 college summer league teams there have only been 17 injuries to NCAA college pitchers and 15 injuries to college summer league pitchers.  Only 32 injuries after 331,821 balls were hit into play (Balls hit into play are calculated by taking the number of at bats and subtracting strike outs and bases on balls).  The injuries in the summer leagues were more severe than the NCAA injuries.  One-third of the summer league injuries involved the head and face as opposed to none in the NCAA.  The third year of the study will be completed in 2007.
 
What this data does indicate is that injuries to the pitcher from batted balls are very rare and can happen while using metal or wood bats.  There is no data to indicate that the few catastrophic injuries to baseball pitchers from metal bats would not have happened if the batter was using a wood bat.  Before any sport makes rule changes, equipment changes, or other changes related to the safety of the participants, it is imperative that these changes are based on reliable injury data and not anecdotal information.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

biggerpapibiggerpapi5,000+ posts
This is very interesting coming from an organization that is nuts about safety (did you watch the LLWS with the "trainer" who came out and spent 10 minutes with every little incident?

However, it also might prove that if you're going to get drilled with a batted ball, it's going to happen regardless of the bat.

I was very interested in this quote:

quote:
Originally posted by biggerpapi:
 
A study from the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research shows that there have been only 15 catastrophic batted ball injuries to pitchers out of more than 9,500,000 high school and college participants since 1982.
 


Should we make such major changes when only 0.0000015% of players are killed by aluminum bats?

That being said, I'll bet that 80% or more of people who really know baseball, want wood...not for safety but for the beauty of the game.

I'm one of them.
hokieonehokieone5,000+ posts
The HBO special 2-3 years ago exposed that BESR tests are done using unrealistically low speeds for the ball and for the bat, which sure helps keep the exit speed down, at least at the college level. A number of coaches were quoted as having gunned balls coming off of metal bats at speeds well in excess of 100 mph where no human being could possibly react to protect themselves.

As all of us know that watch a lot of baseball, wooden bat and metal, balls come off the metal bats faster, but who are we going to believe-Little League or our lying eyes?
Midlo DadMidlo Dad10,000+ posts
I'm with Biggerpapi -- safety issue or not, the game loses something with the switch from wood to metal.

I love going to PG's WWBA tourneys to see REAL baseball, and to see the kids' eyes light up over playing it. Pitchers should know the feeling of having an opposing hitter's bat turn to kindling! And batters do feel pride when they show they really can nail the ball, without artificial help.

The real issue with metal, to me, is not so much safety as it is the way it skews the game. Metal bats have larger sweet spots, and in fact, you can get a hit with a ball off your handle at times. Balls that shouldn't leave the infield end up as Texas Leaguers. Those hits bug me more than the deep HR's.
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.

Observers top 5:

1. - Selective reality...

2. - The very definition of the tail wagging the dog..

3. - Money? People?...hmmm...MONEY!

4. - My kids were right..Science sucks. You can give me all the science you want, those of us who have seen the ball come off carbon fibre know that there is no comparison...

5. - and finally...posted in the wrong thread. This should be in the "Unusually Unusual" section with
"Baby Airplanes", and "Gorilla On The Roof"...

No, on second thought...I retract that...I wouldn't want to insult the Karma thread...

Cool 44
.
Last edited by observer44
08Dad08Dad1,000+ posts
The thing that people who do surveys of this type ignore is that the standard was adopted in 1999 by the NCAA - and probably written in 1998 or earlier.

Testing done in 2002 would be probably 2nd generation bats - not really equivalent to the bats of today.

The engineers at the various bat companies have now had 9 years to figure out how to make a bat that is compliant - and that is hotter than ever.

To me there is a nice parallel to Golf. In 1995 John Daly led the pro tour with an average driving distance of 289 yards. In 2006 the average on the tour was 287 yards.

Moving away from the pros - as a teenager I was a single digit handicap golfer - and could drive it with my wooden driver and steel shaft an average of 270 yards. Today I am a high teens handicapper and routinely reach 300 yards with my turbo charged, graphite shaft, titanium head driver. My swing is far worse, nowhere near the club head speed of my youth - but I am 30 yards longer... and the holes that were once driver-7 iron are now driver wedge routine pars.

The same thing is happening with baseball bats - we just don't have a good way to measure it.

I'd love to see the BESR standards revisted once every 5 years and adjusted for technology.

08
rz1rz15,000+ posts
I am pro-wood but not at the small diamond level. 75% of the kids at that level would have problems handling wood which may result in a measurable percentage changing over to dandelion kickin socker players. HSBBW members for the most part represent the cream of the crop, and at times I think our voice is a little amplified for that fact. The last thing you want to do is knock that number of small field players down because of frustration issues. We all know that LL is not the future "talent indicator", so you may be losing some of your future hidden gems because of equipment issues. As far as the old school "crack of the bat" sound, it is not a noise you will hear on a small field, what I think you might hear is a lot of "heads-up" as wood bats fly out of young hands. When I think of LL I think small diamond, and when I think small diamond I think of players that represent the largest number of LL paticipants. Go to wood on the big field, but don't chew off the small field hand that feeds you. IMHO.

As rz scurries into a hole.
Last edited by rz1
rz1rz15,000+ posts
Putting the wood/metal bat issues aside and looking at a "contoversy brewing" mentality, this is a very smart move. Not only have they identified their allies, they are the first to have drawn a line in the sand with the groups behind them documented. I am a woody-fan for the most part but part of my "real" job is facilitation and I see proponents of a ban will now face even a larger uphill battle IMO. My bet is the NJ law pushed this statement as a fresh counter point to that law.
Last edited by rz1
jaxnbulldogjaxnbulldog100+ posts
Like rz1, i like the idea of "small field" ball with metal. Say 14 and under. That should separate the whet from the chaff.

Most of us on here, as previously stated, are "Old School" and think wood is the only way to go.

BUT...my daddy rode a mule to school, I drove a car.
Sure, it was mom's old Ford Station Wagon (called "The Snaggin' Waggin'" to my boyz), but it wasn't as "Old School" as a mule. Sometimes, you just have to surrender to the advances of technology...at least at the small field level. But HS and College should go to wood IMHO.
S Scorekeeper100+ posts
The only problem I have with LLIs article is when they talk about the BESR standard. The following is a link to THE white paper.

http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/BESRWhitePaper.pdf

It doesn’t take a member of MENSA to understand that using a pitch speed of 70 and a bat speed of 66 is using something even 13YOs can easily attain, let alone 19YO HS, or 24YO college players.

Like biggerpappi and others, I too pine for the return of wood bats. Unfortunately, there’s nowhere near enough good wood such as the ML players get, to go around.

As Milo Dad points out, metal bats do skew things, but evidently the ML teams don’t care. Now if they did, you can bet your bippy we’d see a decrease in wood in a heartbeat!

catcher09, makes an interesting point, but I’m afraid its really not very valid. Anyone stupid enough to throw BP to a HS player without an L-screen is a jerk. Getting nailed by a wood bat or a metal on is gonna hurt, and I don’t think anyone would be able to tell the difference when it happened.

observer44, do you really think a ball hit by a CF after a 70MPH pitch and the bat swung at 66, is really coming off faster than it does from wood? I honestly don’t. But, kick either up by a little as 1mph, and you have a much different story.

08dad, it doesn’t matter what generation the bats are, they all have to be tested and meet the requirements. What gets misunderstood is, they can be engineered to perform better once they get outside of the testing parameters.

Rz1, what makes you think the little kids couldn’t handle wood bats and would leave the game? We did it for many many years. Would wood perform the same way metal does? Of course not, but I’m sure there’s some other synthetic right over the horizon that will outperform the newest of modern composites.
T Texan1,000+ posts
Anyone who throws BP to 12YO's without an Lscreen is not too smart!

Gosh, rz. In the olden days when I grew up, wood bats were all we had. There were no aluminum bats. And everyone still played the game just fine. And those old wood bats were heavier than what wood bats you can get today.

There are plenty of wood composite bats today that last just fine but hit much more like wood than like aluminum.
Dad04Dad045,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by hokieone:
It may just be me, but I find it very scarey that there's an organization called "T Ball USA". Eek


Hokie good catch!. I'll check but I think they are part of the International World T-Ball Congress. I am looking to put together a high level 4U fall team that will work to expose our players to the top 6-8 and under coaches. Smile
08Dad08Dad1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Scorekeeper:
08dad, it doesn’t matter what generation the bats are, they all have to be tested and meet the requirements.


Of course it matters what generation the bats are - the more generations, the more time the engineers have had to figure out how to get around the standards.

Which is what I was trying to say with this statement:

quote:
Originally posted by 08Dad:
The engineers at the various bat companies have now had 9 years to figure out how to make a bat that is compliant - and that is hotter than ever.


If the golf analogy doesn't work for you, how about emission control standards - remember the lovely cars of the early 1970s? Emissions controls degrade the performance of engines that were not designed to work with smog gear... now a couple of decades later, smog control equipment is just a minor annoyance rather than causing the car to be a real dog.

Baseball bats are hotter than ever - no I don't buy that every year is a huge improvement over the prior year - and no 08 son doesn't always have the latest model bat - but if you take a bat of today and compare it to a bat of 5 years ago, the new bat is "hotter". It still complies with the test - but the engineers have figured out how to make the bat comply with the test and still offer more performance when you are outside the strict parameters of what the test was designed for. And as the link you provided points out - the test does not reflect reality at either the college or the high school level...
Last edited by 08Dad
rz1rz15,000+ posts
quote:
Scorekeeper quote:
Rz1, what makes you think the little kids couldn’t handle wood bats and would leave the game? We did it for many many years. Would wood perform the same way metal does? Of course not, but I’m sure there’s some other synthetic right over the horizon that will outperform the newest of modern composites.

Who can say they wouldn't leave the game? Years ago we had limited options? We did a lot of things differently years ago but does that mean we had the best way of doing it. Sometimes we sound like our grandpas. "I remember when....", "If you kids had to do things like we had to.....". Those were "their" good ol days. Why do kids today have to comply with our old standards. Were we right? Do things stop evolving because that's how we did it? I know I would have had many issues if what my dad thought was the way I had to do things. Baseball and life evolve, we are here to enjoy the ride , not control it. We're not playing, they are. Please remember that I am a wood advocate for safety purposes at older ages, but accross the board changes may be nothing more than us not letting go of a game we no longer play.
quote:
Texan quote:
Gosh, rz. In the olden days when I grew up, wood bats were all we had. There were no aluminum bats. And everyone still played the game just fine. And those old wood bats were heavier than what wood bats you can get today.
I remember going to my grandmas house and playing in this HUGE stone porch. Years later I drove by that house and smiled. That porch was really small, but in my "kid mind" it was the biggest thing on earth, and nothing was better. My point is that maybe in our mind we thought everyone played the game just fine. I personally feel that kids ages 5-11 play the game at a much higher level today and their neighborhood team would kick our neighborhood teams arse. Sure, some kids would have no problem with adapting to wood, but factor in the entire "group" and I think you might have "resulting issues".
Last edited by rz1
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
If someone has already mentioned this, guess this is just an agreement.

As someone who has seen both wood and metal used at nearly every level, I think all these tests are meaningless. Also I really don’t think the ball is hit much harder or farther with a metal bat.

Rather than spending a fortune on scientific testing, why not use good old common sense!

For example…

Everyone will agree that batting averages are much higher when metal bats are used. This has been proven, time and time again!

This should tell us that MORE balls are hit HARD with metal bats. Not hit harder as much as being hit hard more often!

This means that more balls are also hit hard back through the middle using metal bats. The pitcher is obviously the one player the most at risk.

We all know the reasons why more balls are hit hard with metal and it doesn’t have to take a scientist to figure it out! Now if the exit speed is only slightly more or even the same but the frequency of balls being hit hard is much, much higher… Wouldn’t it make sense that the wood bat is less dangerous, based on percentages.
There is the #1 reason for using wood! SAFETY!

The #2 reason is it’s a much better game! IMO

The #3 reason is it’s the equipment used at the highest level. I don’t know, but in other sports where a ball is hit, do they use different equipment in high school and college than they do at the professional level? If so, please let me know.
T Texan1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by rz1:
quote:
Texan quote:
Gosh, rz. In the olden days when I grew up, wood bats were all we had. There were no aluminum bats. And everyone still played the game just fine. And those old wood bats were heavier than what wood bats you can get today.
I remember going to my grandmas house and playing in this HUGE stone porch. Years later I drove by that house and smiled. That porch was really small, but in my "kid mind" it was the biggest thing on earth, and nothing was better. My point is that maybe in our mind we thought everyone played the game just fine. I personally feel that kids ages 5-11 play the game at a much higher level today and their neighborhood team would kick our neighborhood teams arse. Sure, some kids would have no problem with adapting to wood, but factor in the entire "group" and I think you might have "resulting issues".


The bats were heavier. I still have some of them around. The handles were significantly thicker than what are used today.

You can even order ash bats today & specify up to a -4 or -5. You can get -3 in maple.

The kids that want to play baseball will play, even if all there is available is a broomstick. If wood bats are all that are in the pile, they'll grab it & head to the plate. I guarantee you...
rz1rz15,000+ posts
quote:
The kids that want to play baseball will play, even if all there is available is a broomstick. If wood bats are all that are in the pile, they'll grab it & head to the plate. I guarantee you...

Tex, we are personally on the same page about everything, my heart says "all wood" because I'm old school. I'm throwing comments out in this thread without my "heart" involved. However, I don't only want the kids who "want to play", I also want to see the kids who learn to love the game involved and I think that by instilling the reasons we feel "are right" is not the way to go. Safety is a real issue, but not at the little diamond level. Why change something that is not broke for our idealistic reasons?
rz1rz15,000+ posts
quote:
The #3 reason is it’s the equipment used at the highest level. I don’t know, but in other sports where a ball is hit, do they use different equipment in high school and college than they do at the professional level? If so, please let me know.


PG- I think the HS - College- and Pro footballs are a little different. Confused
S Scorekeeper100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by 08Dad:
Of course it matters what generation the bats are - the more generations, the more time the engineers have had to figure out how to get around the standards.

Which is what I was trying to say with this statement:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 08Dad:
The engineers at the various bat companies have now had 9 years to figure out how to make a bat that is compliant - and that is hotter than ever.


Mebbe we’re agreeing but are just speaking a different language. ;-)

My point was, the bats all have to meet the .728 BESR, but if they only test at 66B/70Pmph, it doesn’t matter what generation the bats are, they’ll all exceed the limits at velocities much more representative of game normal speeds for the groups using BESR bats. That’s HSs and Colleges.
S Scorekeeper100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by CADad:
I don't believe the tests are designed to take into account bat flex, thus the flex bats of recent years.


Not being an engineer, I don’t know for sure, but since BESR relates to “Exit Speed”, what does it matter how the flex affects it. Or are you saying flex has some effect post the ball exiting the bat?

It seems to me that flex would have an effect on the bat speed, and since that’s set to 66, it seems to me the flex is immaterial.
S Scorekeeper100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by rz1:Who can say they wouldn't leave the game? Years ago we had limited options? We did a lot of things differently years ago but does that mean we had the best way of doing it. Sometimes we sound like our grandpas. "I remember when....", "If you kids had to do things like we had to.....". Those were "their" good ol days. Why do kids today have to comply with our old standards. Were we right? Do things stop evolving because that's how we did it? I know I would have had many issues if what my dad thought was the way I had to do things. Baseball and life evolve, we are here to enjoy the ride , not control it. We're not playing, they are. Please remember that I am a wood advocate for safety purposes at older ages, but accross the board changes may be nothing more than us not letting go of a game we no longer play.


Maybe I’m just not getting your point. You seem to think that the difference is, today’s kids wouldn’t take the time nor have the ability to adapt to whatever they had for bats, and because of that they’d be more apt to leave the game.

To me that seems to say you’re one of the reasons people won’t even try to go back to wood because you’re afraid of something that has no basis in fact. Why do you think kids use the modern bats rather than wood?

Because they’re lighter and perform better? With a little bit of work and some lead tape, I can make a wood bat “feel” much lighter than a drop 11, but retain the higher mass, which should make it outperform metal.

I don’t believe safety is an issue. If it truly was, the insurance carriers would be the first ones to let everyone know the metal bats were less safe by raising the rates to the point where they couldn’t be afforded.

I know that in your heart you feel they are unsafe, but people who actually compute probabilities, which is what insurance companies do, don’t use feelings, they use mathematics, and usually Bayes Theorem. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/
S Scorekeeper100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
Everyone will agree that batting averages are much higher when metal bats are used. This has been proven, time and time again!


Although I’d tend to agree, I don’t know where its been proven? I’d be interested in reviewing the data if you can help me out.

quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
This should tell us that MORE balls are hit HARD with metal bats. Not hit harder as much as being hit hard more often!


I don’t think how “HARD” balls are hit is what makes the difference. Maybe that metal bats can have a much much larger sweet spot than a point 6 inches from the
end of the barrel which is where the BESR tests are made, has an effect. IOW, a ball it 3” from the end of the bat or 9” from the end of the bat have the same potential.

Also, there’s little doubt in my mind that a 2 seamer that’s hit 4” above the hand on a metal bat might just drop in for a duck **** single, while if the bat was wood, would end up shattering the bat and being an easy out to the P.

quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
This means that more balls are also hit hard back through the middle using metal bats. The pitcher is obviously the one player the most at risk.


Where did you get that? I’m willing to believe it, but there has to be some kind of data behind it.

quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
We all know the reasons why more balls are hit hard with metal and it doesn’t have to take a scientist to figure it out! Now if the exit speed is only slightly more or even the same but the frequency of balls being hit hard is much, much higher… Wouldn’t it make sense that the wood bat is less dangerous, based on percentages.
There is the #1 reason for using wood! SAFETY!


I’m sorry, but I can’t buy that. Like I’ve said, the final word on it are the insurance companies, and they don’t agree that its much more dangerous if it is at all.

quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
The #2 reason is it’s a much better game! IMO


Much more traditionally accurate, for sure. But a “better” game? that’s pretty much an individual thing, just like whether or not the DH rule is a better or worse game.

I certainly believe wood exposes hitter’s weaknesses far more than metal does. It also gives a much better indication of a pitcher’s ability than metal does. So in that sense. I agree that wood provides a much better game.

quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
The #3 reason is it’s the equipment used at the highest level. I don’t know, but in other sports where a ball is hit, do they use different equipment in high school and college than they do at the professional level? If so, please let me know.


Why limit it to sports where a ball is hit? ;-)

There’s no doubt that to us fans of the more traditional game, baseball’s been tinkered to death to try to make play at all levels appear to b the same as play at he ML level, and like you, I think its done more to hurt the game than help it.

But what can be done about it? As you and others have pointed out many times, the reality of the game is what it is. The game has forever changed, and even if everyone wanted to take it back to what it once was, it can’t happen.

The second society decided it wanted a game that was more glitz, glamour, and power, baseball had to make some difficult choices. It either had to change and give the fans what they wanted, or the fans would leave, and with them, the players would also eventually leave.

Baseball’s tried to provide the best of both the old world and the new, but the jury’s obviously still out on the result.
rz1rz15,000+ posts
Scorekeeper,
Are you pro-wood or anti-wood? When you say you can make a wood bat outperform metal and then say there is not a there is no safety issue I'm getting confused what side of the fence you are on

Maybe I’m just not getting your point. You seem to think that the difference is, today’s kids wouldn’t take the time nor have the ability to adapt to whatever they had for bats, and because of that they’d be more apt to leave the game.
That is a hypothesis, I don't know. I am throwing comments out for discussion. If you want an opinion I THINK you have to have across the board agreement to change and you will not get that at all youth baseball level because they are of the thinking that there is not a reason to change, and change may cause a loss in participation.

To me that seems to say you’re one of the reasons people won’t even try to go back to wood because you’re afraid of something that has no basis in fact. Why do you think kids use the modern bats rather than wood?
It doesn't take as much work to become even the slightest bit profiecent with metal. Kids use them because it is easier out of the box. Lets make it harder with less success and really frustrate them from the get go. Heck, maybe youth football and basketball should use regular size balls because sooner or later they'll get the hang of it.

Because they’re lighter and perform better? With a little bit of work and some lead tape, I can make a wood bat “feel” much lighter than a drop 11, but retain the higher mass, which should make it outperform metal.
You better quite that day job because you will have millions of bats to conform for the players of "little field" baseball players. Remember I am pro-wood on the big field

I don’t believe safety is an issue. If it truly was, the insurance carriers would be the first ones to let everyone know the metal bats were less safe by raising the rates to the point where they couldn’t be afforded.
Why do they insure Ford pintos when they are not as safe as a caddy?

I know that in your heart you feel they are unsafe, but people who actually compute probabilities, which is what insurance companies do, don’t use feelings, they use mathematics, and usually Bayes Theorem. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/[/QUOTE]
I'm not debating a safety issue. PG's post was right on as far as indicating that it may not be a velocity issue but the fact that it may be a "probability" issue because the metal bat has a larger sweet spot thus allowing more solid contact.
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
quote:
PG this is going no where with Scorekeeper.

rz1,

He wants data! (proof) Smile Geez, this site would be tough to keep up with if we had to provide data and proof everytime we post. Just call it my opinion and disagree. I am not trying to win an argument with anyone. I am not an expert at anything!

Anyway, here's something to think about...

We run BCS Tournaments with Metal Bats.
We run WWBA Tournaments with Wood Bats.
A lot of the same Teams play in both!

Here are some of the scores in the 8 team BCS Finals with all high quality teams and pitching. 8-7, 10-8, 16-5, 11-2, 10-3, 8-7, 10-3, 7-6, and the Championship game was 10-9 Midland Redskins defeating East Cobb. In pool play (4 games each team)… Midland scored 27 runs, Savanah Chain 27 runs, East Cobb 35 runs, Richmond County 24 runs. ABD Bulldogs gave up 30 runs in 4 games, SW Florida gave up 31. The lowest runs allowed by any of the 8 teams was 16 or an average of 4 runs a game.

Then some of the same teams also played in the WWBA Championship (Wood Bats) East Cobb allowed 4 runs in 5 games, Midland allowed 3 runs in 5 games, the Florida Bombers allowed 2 runs in 5 games. Anyway, overall just less offense with the Wood Bats!

Without spending days or even weeks adding it all up, we just know there is a lot more offensive production and scoring with the Metal Bat. (Not even close but a lot more) More hits, more home runs, more runs scored, more of everything. We also know the games last longer with metal! Just using common sense, I took it for granted that also includes more balls hit hard down both lines, over the fence, in the gaps and up the middle. No I don’t have the exact data. Lets just call it my opinion for now. Heck, maybe I'm wrong!

One can follow the offensive production in the summer collegiate wood bat leagues to get a good idea.

Regarding insurance companies… The odds of any pitcher getting killed is astronomical, so they have no reason to up the rates, if they in fact haven’t upped the rates. But did they lower the rates when the NCAA implemented bat restrictions a few years ago? Obviously someone (the NCAA) was concerned about safety and turning the game into a farce. In 1998 Southern Cal beat Arizona State 21-14 (Baseball not Football) and balls were flying out of the park on checked swings. It wasn’t the insurance companies who caused the restrictions.

I have no way of proving it, but balls actually hitting pitchers, not necessarily in the head, is going to happen more often with metal than wood. I had a son who pitched, so does rz1 and many others who post here. Justbaseball had a son get seriously injured by a ball hit with a wooden bat. They are both dangerous, but I like the "odds" of staying healthy a lot better with wood. I like it when not so many balls are hit hard!

Guess someone could check back 30 some years ago and see if college hitting statistics increased from wood to metal. Those statistics are probably available somewhere. If hitting production increases, so does the danger to the pitcher! The heck with exit speed, I AM talking simple math!

I’m getting the idea that “scorekeeper” just likes to debate. (Argue) He brings up some good points, but it’s hard to keep up with him. I get the feeling that if you said the sky was blue, he’d debate that. I have a very good friend just like that. Whatever someone says, he takes the opposite side and there’s an argument. He lives for that! It's harmless!
itsinthegameitsinthegame5,000+ posts
When they "market" the latest and greatest - what exactly are they marketing?

If the BESR nonsense tests are all accurate - and if all the manufacturers abide by the bogus rules - ask yourself - What are they marketing?

Is it the color of the bat - Nope.
Is it the longevity of the bat - Nope.

Its the pop.

But its not supposed to be about the pop - if they are following the rules.

Then - you go to a game - and you watch one of these $300 rocket launchers take a ball 325 on a **** swing.

The reasonable person - IMO - has to ask themselves.

What the heck just happened? LOL

Here is the bottom line - IMO.

Liars and thieves - who are willing to sacrifice your childs safety - so they can buy a vacation home.

And they will say and do anything to justify it.

All you gotta do is go and watch a game.

Wink
Last edited by itsinthegame
S Scorekeeper100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by rz1:Are you pro-wood or anti-wood? When you say you can make a wood bat outperform metal and then say there is not a there is no safety issue I'm getting confused what side of the fence you are on


I’m definitely pro wood, always have been and always will be!

quote:
Originally posted by rz1:That is a hypothesis, I don't know. I am throwing comments out for discussion. If you want an opinion I THINK you have to have across the board agreement to change and you will not get that at all youth baseball level because they are of the thinking that there is not a reason to change, and change may cause a loss in participation.


No doubt you’re correct in that the overwhelming assumption is that a change will cause a loss in participation. But, there is no way there will ever be an across the board agreement to anything at the youth level! There are too many empires that would feel threatened!

But knowing, or at least feeling, those things to be true, shouldn’t stop dissenting opinions, and most certainly shouldn’t stop people from trying to introduce change. the last thing anyone should want to see happen is that he game stagnates, and that’s what lack of change means.

quote:
Originally posted by rz1:It doesn't take as much work to become even the slightest bit profiecent with metal. Kids use them because it is easier out of the box. Lets make it harder with less success and really frustrate them from the get go. Heck, maybe youth football and basketball should use regular size balls because sooner or later they'll get the hang of it.


Why do you believe metal is easier out of the box than wood is? I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, but generally when I hear people say that, its because the metal bats can be made so light relative to the length. I.e. 30/17. I’m saying that can be done with wood too.

As far as whether or not equipment should be made in different sizes, I have no trouble with that at all. But, I find it pretty stupid to change the field size and the bat size, but the thing that makes the most difference, the ball, has exactly the same requirements ML has!

Granted, ML balls are constructed to higher standards, but as far as the size and weight and general characteristics goes, they are exactly the same. Why not mess with the balls?

quote:
Originally posted by rz1:You better quite that day job because you will have millions of bats to conform for the players of "little field" baseball players. Remember I am pro-wood on the big field


You think Louisville Slugger, Easton, or any other bat manufacturer couldn’t manufacture wood bats so that they’d come out of the box however people wanted them?

But to tell the truth, I’d much prefer the wood bats came the same way metal bats do, pretty much one size fits all. FI, there’s absolutely no difference in any Easton 30/21of the same model.

Then it would give the kids the opportunity to adjust and tweak their own bats, teaching them something much more important. We have a whole generation of parents, and therefore their kids, who are almost totally ignorant about how to do things to their bats to make them look and feel much closer to their desires than what comes out of a box!

quote:
Originally posted by rz1:Why do they insure Ford pintos when they are not as safe as a caddy? [QUOTE]

Do you honestly believe there no difference in the rates between different cars and different drivers? ;-)

Talk to your insurance guy. I can guarantee that he’ll tell you there are cars that are safe than others and they get better rates.

Heck, Lloyds of London will insure anything, but not everyone can afford it. Trust me. If the insurance carriers really believed there was a significantly higher danger, you’d see the rates climb to the moon, and eventually it would become unaffordable.

The thing is, you might feel a 1 in 20,000,000 chance is enough to make something dangerous, but that doesn’t mean everyone feels the same way. there are those who would argue that if you really feel they’re unsafe and still let you child pitch, you should be put in jail. I really don’t think they’re more dangerous at all.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rz1:I'm not debating a safety issue. PG's post was right on as far as indicating that it may not be a velocity issue but the fact that it may be a "probability" issue because the metal bat has a larger sweet spot thus allowing more solid contact.


If it isn’t a safety issue, who cares whether or not there’s more solid contact? It isn’t as though things change for only one player, or even a some number less than all. The difference affects everyone.

If you don’t like what those differences provide, then you either 1) forsake the game entirely, 2) do what you can to force changes, or 3) learn to live with it.

I’d say you were in trouble. Forsaking the game shouldn’t even be an option, and you don’t think its possible to affect changes across the board. That seems to leave only living with it.

quote:
Originally posted by rz1
PG this is going no where with Scorekeeper. You made great points


Nowhere depends on you perspective, and so does whether or not the points were valid.

Its all just information for the ol' database.
itsinthegameitsinthegame5,000+ posts
Getting wrapped up in the debate is actually a strategy.

And the debate - with the bogus stats - and the "paid for lobbyists" - will do exactly what it is intended to do. And that is - just kill time - and let the same old keep on being the same old.

The fact of the matter is that the metal bat dudes got themselves firmly entrenched years and years ago - and now they are rich.

And the best strategy for these leeches - who couldnt care less about the dangers to the players and the distortion of the game - is to just keep the debates and the BS flowing.

Smart businessmen IMO - bad human beings - but smart businessmen.
Last edited by itsinthegame
itsinthegameitsinthegame5,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Scorekeeper:
quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
Everyone will agree that batting averages are much higher when metal bats are used. This has been proven, time and time again!


Although I’d tend to agree, I don’t know where its been proven? I’d be interested in reviewing the data if you can help me out.



You "Tend" to agree"?

You really dont need it proven by anyone - do you?.

Here is all you have to do.

Go to a game.
Be conscious.
With Gods grace - be able to utilize the gift of eyesight.

And that is that.

No BESR's - no spokesmen - No BS

Just watch the ******* game - and in about 5 minutes - you will get it - unless of course you are a marketer of $300 metal rocket launchers. LOL
S Scorekeeper100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff: He wants data! (proof) Geez, this site would be tough to keep up with if we had to provide data and proof everytime we post.


I don’t know what I said that was so egregious. All I said was that I didn’t know what you said was “proven” even though I tended to agree. Then you provided some what looks like pretty easy to get data, and although it proves nothing conclusively, its certainly good enough for the purposes of this discussion.

You see, I didn’t KNOW anything, and therefore couldn’t be counted with “EVERYONE”. How would I or anyone else get access to the same data you do?

quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff: But did they lower the rates when the NCAA implemented bat restrictions a few years ago?


Which should imply that if they thought the dangers had increased again, they would definitely have no reservations about re-raising the rates.

quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff: They are both dangerous, but I like the "odds" of staying healthy a lot better with wood.


What you like may or may not reflect what the math does, but it doesn’t matter if that’s what you feel. I never argued with that at all.

But consider this. is it at all possible that the numbers you see are very much skewed from what the vast majority of play is? IOW, would a suitable solution be to use wood for the higher caliber of play, such as tournaments?

quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff: If hitting production increases, so does the danger to the pitcher!


That isn’t the issue. There’s some level of danger present, just because it’s a sport with things flying around, people running all over the place, and all the other things going on. The issue is, does the use of metal bats increase the danger to unacceptable levels?

For you and lots of others, the answer is obviously yes. For me, the answer is, I don’t know because I don’t know because I don’t have access to all of the data I’d need to make an intelligent decision.

I can tell you that my gut feeling is the same as yours, but that isn’t proof. So, what do I do to try to resolve this issue? I rely on those people who are in the business of risk analysis. Insurance companies. To the best of my knowledge, they don’t see the risk as being significant enough to warrant action. Hence, my position.

Maybe rather than going back and forth, we need to try to define what an acceptable risk is. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the chances of significant injury to a pitcher with a metal bat is 1 in 1,000, and the chances with wood is 1 in 100,000. That’s a pretty significant difference.

But what if the difference was only 1 in 10.000, for wood. That’s still 10 times more likely, and probable would lose a few folks, but not a whole lot.

Now lets say its only 1 in 2,000. That means metal injuries are twice as likely than wood. That’s still a pretty significant difference, but let’s look at that real hard. What if the odds were in the millions instead of the thousands?

It would still be twice as likely with metal, but the odds of it happening at all are significantly higher, so does that change anything?

Here’s a link to a LLI statement. http://www.littleleague.org/media/USA_Youth_Baseball_012507.asp

Let’s not argue its merits, but let’s look at the last paragraph.

What this data does indicate is that injuries to the pitcher from batted balls are very rare and can happen while using metal or wood bats. There is no data to indicate that the few catastrophic injuries to baseball pitchers from metal bats would not have happened if the batter was using a wood bat. Before any sport makes rule changes, equipment changes, or other changes related to the safety of the participants, it is imperative that these changes are based on reliable injury data and not anecdotal information.

How can anyone argue that that paragraph doesn’t make a great deal of sense.

So what’s an acceptable number?
S Scorekeeper100+ posts
itinthegame,

I do go to games, I do watch, and I do get it that metal bats are more dangerous and do provide a definite advantage over wood.

I GET IT!

I HATE THE FREAKIN’ THINGS!

I TOO HAVE A SON WHO WAS A COLLEGE PITCHER, AND I DID WORRY ABOUT HIS SAFTEY!

But, I am saying that I’m not sure that metal bats alone are so much more dangerous than wood, that it’s the main reason I wish they’d just go away!

I’m feeling pretty impotent here, not because I don’t think my argument has merit, but because you other folks are so willing to accept conjecture and perception rather than facts.

I’ve been watching the game for a heck of a long time now, and other than the batting helmet and the rules for throwing at batters, and fighting, nothing’s really changed as far as safety. I’m sure there are things we don’t know about, but I’m talking about the game itself.

But the game below the pros has constantly been made “safer”, to the point of what some would say is ridiculous. I surely don’t want to see anyone get hurt, but c’mon. when you decide to make a change to the game because of safety, how about at least making sure safety is an issue!

I’m gonna guess that the chances of a pitcher getting significantly injured by a batted ball, is less than him/her getting seriously injured from the time s/he leaves class, home, or whatever heading to the game, until the umpire call Play Ball!

I’m not for metal at all. I’m against a lynch mob mentality that wants to act just because they don’t like something.
Next

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×