Little League and AL

quote:

The only reason they went to metal over wood, Was it was cheaper for the LL's around the world to afford to sponser teams.

EH,
I would say that was one reason, but the main reason may be that one bat manufacturer who did not have a nitch in the wood bat market had a dream that they could go out of the box and create a new product. We all talk about going back to wood, but never once have I seen the "history of the metal bat" brought into the conversation. Like all other advancements in the world today, I think it was driven by profit and customer demand. Those are two factors that a grassroot rebellions will not stop without the help of "eyeopening drop-dead" statistics that cannot be argued, or financing from a Ralph Nader type group. As much as I love wood I don't see it changing accross the board, and in the meantime I can get my wood fix, at least in my area, in the college summer leagues and home talent venues.

The first reason they went to metal over wood was to save $$, By not having to buy wood bats all the time.
LL's did not have a lot of resources.
Anything to cut cost.
Now it's a whole blown out billion dollar industrie.
That's capitalisum at it's finest.

Like I said, Start more wood bat only league's.
Supply and demand will make the change for us???
EH

quote:

Originally posted by cvsting:
Who $$$ financed $$$ the study that little league put out? Easton, TPX, Rawlings, Worth, or Demarini?
$$$$ $$$$

CV, you skeptical old dog, you...

EH-
I've stated this opinion in a previous thread, but perhaps it merits repeating here.
Taking the approach of armoring up pitchers, you can target reduction of a limited type of injury (TBI, facial trauma, etc). IOW, only where the protection is worn.
The wood bat approach, as PG pointed out, reduces the frequency of hard hit balls back at pitchers, thereby reducing the risk for ALL potential batted ball injuries.

I'm talking preventing all injury's to pitcher's.
It make's no differance if it's metal are wood.
If the ball has your name on it??

All Faceal/Head type injury's.
Pitcher's are vunerable just by the fact there so close,
And there out of position after the pitch.

I'm talking top quality stuff hear.
State of the art technology.
Form fitting.
With NO LAUGHING??

You know like make it Manditory.
Just like the catcher has to have a cup/ a mask/ a chest protector, leg guards.

Anyway think about it?
EH

Why not eliminate the pitcher, let him program a computer generated pitch with a hand held that has a +/- success factor. Then he can hide behind the machine and field a ball if it comes his way.

Come on people. Are we becomming that soft that after over 100 years of playing the game we want to protect the sissy's on the mound. Are the corners next? Unfortunatly, injuries are a byproduct of sports and this seems to be a kneejerk reaction to the dislike of Metal bats. There will not be a competitive pitcher alive that will wear protection that will give the batter any more advantage that he already has. Armor can protect you but with protection comes performance limitations. We talk about pitching as a whole being less than it was, this will make it better?

Well to counter that.
Maybe the Pitcher will be able to pitch a little faster??
Less Stress of trying to be in a defensive position after the pitch.
They could really whip it??

Being a sissy has nothing to do with it.
Where talking, being able to take a shot to the head.
And not missing his next start in the rotation.

You have to admit some pitcher's are not in position after there pitch to properly defend themselves agains't a come backer.
EH

I think I agree with PGStaff and Coach May about getting rid of the high compression bats, but I still don't see the difference between a regular aluminum bat and a wood bat. If more balls are hit hard from an aluminum, but not any harder than the best wood hit, is this a problem?

Wood is very expensive. The change to aluminum was a sound idea originally. The ability to improve the aluminum bat to dynamic proportions has been the problem. But it does seem like the aluminum bat is here to stay.

My son played on a very good summer and fall team last year with all wood bat competition. The team stocked composite bats that the players used about 90% of the time. The problem was that the bats became dead after awhile and had to be replaced. In fact, they never seemed to match wood for power even when they were new. I tried to get my son to use wood but the wood bats would break. He averaged a bat a week. I gave up on it due to the cost. Had I been persistent I would have spent well over a thousand dollars in bats. If every hitter used wood exclusively the added cost would climb to over ten thousand dollars. Travel baseball is expensive enough as it is without the cost of replacing wood bats.

Coach May posted earlier about keeping wood at all levels. He mentioned other sports like football and basketball not changing for the youth leagues. But they do modify all sports for the kids. Socker fields are smaller and so is the ball. Basketball rims are lower for the younger kids in many leagues. H.S. basketball uses a smaller court than the pros do. Youth football starts kids out with flag football. When my son was in tee-ball they used safety balls. I don't see the problem with modifying the sport from is pure adult form.

My son played in Marietta and Jupiter last year and Coach May is 100% correct when he mentions how quickly the games get played. The best pitchers from around the country are there and runs can be tough to come by. In Jupiter, I heard there was only one home run hit the entire tournament. And that was 80 teams each playing at least 4 games. I don't know how PG is rating kids power when there is none to rate. But, does it matter that the games finish faster? Is that better for the players? My son's team went 3-1 and did not advance due to tiebreaker rules. They were as talented as most teams there yet only had one hit in their first two games. I'm sure lots of teams had low hit totals. This may work when you have the best kids in the country trying to get noticed by scouts, but do we really want our youth leagues becoming more one dimensional.

One last thing, when my dad was younger and working, all the company softball leagues were fastpitch leagues. They all virtually died out because the game became a game dominated by the pitchers. Men now play slow pitch softball and everyone is more involved and the games are more fun. The same thing applies to youth baseball. Kids already hate playing in the outfield because there is so little action. Why make it worse by taking action away from the infielders as well.

quote:

Originally posted by theEH:
Well to counter that.
Maybe the Pitcher will be able to pitch a little faster??
Do pitchers throw harder during pen that in a game? A good pitcher doesn't even factor in that "what if I get hit" mentality during his "me vs him" approach on the mound.
Less Stress of trying to be in a defensive position after the pitch.
They could really whip it??

Being a sissy has nothing to do with it.
That was tongue-n-cheek. My son also a pitcher is always compared to a kicker by his teammates
Where talking, being able to take a shot to the head.
And not missing his next start in the rotation.

You have to admit some pitcher's are not in position after there pitch to properly defend themselves agains't a come backer.
Maybe they should work on that part of their game
EH

quote:

Originally posted by Dear old Dad:
The team stocked composite bats that the players used about 90% of the time. The problem was that the bats became dead after awhile and had to be replaced. In fact, they never seemed to match wood for power even when they were new.

The same thing applies to youth baseball. Kids already hate playing in the outfield because there is so little action. Why make it worse by taking action away from the infielders as well.

Personally, I haven't seen composite bats going dead. Nor have I seen them hit distances appreciably different that regular wood.

I still don't understand why some folks keep saying wood bats would hurt youth ball. For many, many years there were no metal bats. And youth baseball did just fine with those wood bats.

I'm sort of a purest also, But with light weight composite's and the like they could really come up with something right now.
The problem is the player's attitude toward's it.
Also us old men??

Anyway just keep an open mind, And think about it.
EH

quote:

Originally posted by Texan:

quote:

Originally posted by Dear old Dad:

The same thing applies to youth baseball. Kids already hate playing in the outfield because there is so little action. Why make it worse by taking action away from the infielders as well.

I still don't understand why some folks keep saying wood bats would hurt youth ball. For many, many years there were no metal bats. And youth baseball did just fine with those wood bats.

Texan, the undeniable fact is, that wood bats are currently available for every kid out there and always have been. Aluminum has become the bat of choice for kids because it doesn't break, stings less and you make solid contact more often. These seem like positive things to me that have made the game more fun and more affordable for everyone. So yes, taking away aluminum bats would hurt youth baseball, how much it would hurt we don't know.

This whole discussion started despite the fact that there is no evidence anywhere that aluminum bats are more dangerous than wood bats. Like I said earlier, I have seen many kids get hurt by a thrown ball, but not one, ever, by a batted ball.

The only reason kids get hurt in baseball is because if something can happen, it will happen. And that is the risk we all take when we wake up in the morning. Baseball is not inherently dangerous, as the statistics have shown.

DOD

quote:

Aluminum has become the bat of choice for kids

Only because mom and dad buy it for them.
Must have the latest are greatest, Don't want to get behind the Joneses.
EH

quote:

Originally posted by Dear old Dad:
Texan, the undeniable fact is, that wood bats are currently available for every kid out there and always have been. Aluminum has become the bat of choice for kids because it doesn't break, stings less and you make solid contact more often. These seem like positive things to me that have made the game more fun and more affordable for everyone. So yes, taking away aluminum bats would hurt youth baseball, how much it would hurt we don't know.

This whole discussion started despite the fact that there is no evidence anywhere that aluminum bats are more dangerous than wood bats. Like I said earlier, I have seen many kids get hurt by a thrown ball, but not one, ever, by a batted ball.

The only reason kids get hurt in baseball is because if something can happen, it will happen. And that is the risk we all take when we wake up in the morning. Baseball is not inherently dangerous, as the statistics have shown.

The undeniable fact is that many leagues required use of aluminum and forbade wood. Unless they have changed, LL Inc. did not allow wood. The undeniable fact is that many dads choose metal for their sons because they can hit the ball farther more often with metal than with wood.

Having been around a lot of older youth players the last few years (13 & up), they all LOVE wood bat tourneys.

Stings??? I have heard far more players yelping about stingers with aluminum than wood.

More afforable? When they are charging $200-$350 for these metals? You can get a good wood composite for $70-$150 and it will last as long as metal. Metal bats start going dead in six months.

We'll just have to disagree on what the impact of going back to wood would be on youth ball.

You are absolutely right that every sport carries risk, just as does living. And how to limit those risks "reasonably" makes for interesting discussions, as we have seen here.

Texan,

I looked at the Little League website and thay do allow wood bats. Little League approved ones only. I have not heard of any Youth league that outlaws wood bats.

The issue here seems to be those explosive and high priced Scandium\Titanium bats. And we do agree that they should be discarded. The only aluminum bat I support is the original one that is very similar to wood in its reactions. They cost about $65.00.

I won't buy a fancy bat for my son because the weather doesn't get warm enough here in N.J. to use them until the season is almost over.

And I do agree with you that wood is catching on to some degree. At least with the teens. But those kids are the few kids who have continued to play baseball into their teens. We all know the drop off rate at the age of 13.

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.

As a side note, the baseballs themselves are different at the various levels. And yes, the footballs are different as well. Basketball, I'm not sure but those may be slightly smaller as well.

MidloDad you make some good points. But maybe kids would learn how to play the game if we went to wood? You know hitting behind runners , learning to properly sac bunt , learning to hit the ball where it is pitched? If a kid hooks around an outside fastball and pulls it with metal not only will he not break his bat he might get a hit. Try this with wood and see what happens. Getting sawed off on the inside pitch with metal can produce a basehit and often does but what happens with wood? If kids hit with wood all the time you would see the runs produced gradually increase and you would see kids become better hitters over time. I for one believe the game of baseball was designed to incorporate moving runners with ground balls behind the runner at second with less than two outs , moving runners with the sac bunt etc etc. What we have now is gorilla ball with no sense of situational hitting. When a kid pays 100 bucks for a bat and goes in the cage and he learns to not pull the outside pitch because he doesnt want to have to ask for another bat. With metal there are no immediate consequences. In Jupiter and other WWBA events you have dominate pitching on just about every team. Great pitching is always going to dominate great hitters. I for one just believe the game is much better when played the way it was designed to be played. Metal bats are not realistic to the game. The slow rollers off the wood are challenging for the infielders , bunt defense , bunt offense , being solid in the cut game , throwing strikes and not allowing walks , moving runners it all becomes much more important with the wood. JMHO

Whoooahhh doggy!

Alrighty fellas,....how about a 10 minute breather break???
The cigar smoke in here is gettin' pretty thick!

Refreshments out in the hall.
Bar open.
Bandaids available for over typed fingers.

( felt compelled to get a little female posting on this forum. Didn't want ya to think us ladies weren't paying attention. )

Alrighty then,..now that everyone has had a good stretch and is refreshed,

please,......

carry on.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Scorekeeper, the floor belongs to you!

PGStaff, Thank you for the encouraging words. I’ll do my best to explain what we were talking about.

You were explaining that the issue of safety is really important to you, and I was trying to explain that its important to me too. But I think its important that when someone is trying to get something accomplished, they try to do it in the most efficient and easiest way possible. And, going after the metal bats was ok, but I thought there was a much less resistant way to go about it than how often a P gets seriously injured by a batted ball. The reason for that is, its so rare, the numbers get gaudy.

I’ll quote out of the PM here to make it a little less typing for me. ;-)

In fact, I actually feel bad because I believe there would have been a lot more progress made getting rid of the “devil” bats, if it weren’t being attacked from so many different directions. For instance, claiming that it would be a huge benefit to the arms of pitchers because they’d have to throw fewer pitchers is a valid safety issue, and I believe not only is it a very good argument, there’s a much better chance of proving it scientifically.

In fact, I believe its much more important as a safety issue than getting hit by a batted ball is. Those numbers you quoted about runs were wonderful, and I think very meaningful numbers. Trouble is, you need more numbers and from varying other sources to convince these people that changes need to be made!

That’s the sum and substance of it. There’s all kinds of evidence of the growing number of pitcher’s arm injuries! There’s been TV special after TV special about it. There’s printed articles about it all over the place. There’s studies by several respected groups, from ASMI, to LLI, to the Orthopedic Surgeons. Also, every individual authority from coaches, to players, to team doctors say the same thing too.

What’s interesting is, although all those different groups, reports, and individuals pretty much all say a lot of different things, they all have one thing in common, and that’s saying OVERUSE IS A BAD THING!

Now we have a good ol’ fashioned handle everyone can grab on to, and agree on. At least I don’t know of anyone who says overuse isn’t an issue.

Now that there’s an undisputed safety issue, how can we prove it?

PGStaff, with what I suppose was only a few minutes effort because the data is available, quoted some numbers that certainly caught my attention.

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!

those aren’t guesses, they’re real, verifiable numbers! That makes them worth their weight in gold to scientists, and I have to guess those numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. There are more and more tournaments every year from 7YOs to college players where wood bats are used.

The control numbers would be the regular seasons where metal is the norm, and that could easily be compared to wood. And if there was some question about the veracity of the numbers because the tournaments were played with better pitching, or whatever, there are still easily enough metal bat tournaments with virtually the same level of talent that could be used to rein in that controversy.

Enough already, hopefully you get the idea.

Do bats that don’t conform to the OBR standards present more of a danger than those that do? Yes!

What is that danger? The danger is to the arms of pitchers.

Is that danger significant? Yes, and its verifiable simply by counting the number of reported injuries and comparing it to the number of possible injuries.

Who says so? Virtually every leading authority in the world.

Can that be proved empirically? Yes. The numbers are available, but only need someone to gather them.

How’s that?

quote:

Originally posted by theEH:
I know this is going off on a tangent again.
But has anybody thought about Head and Face protection for pitcher's.
The light weight composite's could be used to fit form a perfect fit armour for the head area.
Chest protector for the heart.
I know that is not tradition?
Not Manly?

I can see that not too many posters here follow “kiddyball”.

Last year when the 12YO pitcher was put in a coma after taking a line drive to the heart, all hell broke loose in the youth baseball community! Everybody and his brother was in an uproar!

See http://politics.nexcess.net/pressrelease/2006/06/assemb...trick_diegnan_2.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1666973/posts

Among others, one of the things that quenched most of the bloodlust was when it was sown that the number of circumstances that had to be spot on in order to have had that happen, was so astronomically high, it became statistically insignificant.

FI, the player had to be hit at exactly the right moment when the heart was in a specific state. It also had to happen at the exact velocity needed to cause a heart to stop. It went on and on until the whole issue pretty much dried up and went away.

Is it over for that child and his family? No, and it will never be. But the chances of that same accident happening again are so high no one even calculated it.

But during that very tumultuous time, you wouldn’t believe what people were doing. I read somewhere that the sale of chest protectors and Kevlar vests almost tripled. Sports outlets were reporting being sold out of hockey masks, to say the least, things went crazy for a while.

Some local leagues went so far as to move the pitcher’s distance back, contrary to the organization’s rules the league was in. And one place I read about tied this. They moved home plate back so the distance to 1st and 3rd increased by some 6’, while the distance from 1st to 2nd, and from 2nd to 3rd remained the same.

quote:

Originally posted by hokieone:
I tend to think the problem is greatest at upper levels of high school and college ball, where the actually pitching speeds and bat swing speeds are way above the "standards" used for BESR. Easy solution is change the testing standard so that for high school, a 85 mph pitch is hit by an 85 mph swing, and for college, a 90 mph pitch is hit by a 90 mph swing. The approval ratings would be stamped on the bat "HSBESR" and "CBESR", for high school and college.

I think the problem is everywhere, especially the youth levels.

To being with, there are one heck of a lot more players at 14U using metal bats, than in HS and college.

Another problem is, there’s no standard for everyone. HS and college use BESR, and most of the rest of the baseball world uses BPF.

See http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/AJP-Feb2003.pdf

Which one is better? Is either one good enough?

quote:

Originally posted by hokieone:
If the bat manufacturers are required to conform, they'll do it in a heartbeat and the next "Wonderbat" will be on the market within weeks, and if the testing standard is realistic, so be it. I'd even bet dollars to doughnuts the major bat manufacturing players have already done the research and can adjust p.d.q. to the new standards.

I don’t know if I’d bet my doughnuts, but I think your premise is pretty sound.

What I think would be more likely is, there’s a niche out there for wood composites and plastics that would not only perform like wood, but have the endurance of metal.

quote:

Originally posted by hokieone:
As an aside, both of my sons play college ball, both hit in the off season only with wood, and both prefer wood to metal. When they switch to metal as their college season approaches, the initial reaction to the metallic sound is always "Yeeeech".

Ya know what’s flat out goofy to me? Even at 10YO practices, when a kid uses a woody for BP, everyone stops what they’re doin’ and gets a big smile on their face. I really think everybody wants it, but there’s a group who can’t stand the thought of a drop in performance, and that would be the parents.

As long as they’re willing to shell out $$$$$$ to make Johhny look good, even if they know it’s a sham, metal bats aren’t goin’ anywhere in the HS and below market. As far as I’m concerned, the colleges are their own worst enemy in this one.

Even if there were 10 $100 bats broken per game for 50 games, that cost would still only be $50K. I’ll go along with that being an unmanageable number for JUCOs and small schools, but the big schools make that much money selling hotdogs and beer at just one FB or BB game! they have no excuse!

Scorekeeper,

That is an interesting approach. But - IMO - it wont work.

There are too many variables involved in arm health - and the Metal bat manufacturers know that.

They can keep the debate tied up for decades if you argue against metal bats using pitcher arm injuries as the primary driver.

Many would argue that years ago - kids actually threw more pitches - not less. That alone would kill the approach you recommend.

It is a difficult problem to solve - if you are on the side of wood.

Personally - I think the best approach is to hit them in the pocketbook. It is the only thing they understand.

Yes - It may take a long long time - but if each parent sends their kids to more wood bat tournaments - or finds a summer league that plays only wood - and keeps the pressure on their lawmakers - we may stand a chance of getting rid of these things some day. Is it a long shot - IMO - Most definitely.

As far as safety goes - the balls fly off these bats at unnatural speeds. What amazes me is how anyone can argue that there isnt a huge difference between wood and metal as far as exit speed is concerned.

I dont think that aspect of the debate should be pushed aside - and it concerns not only pitchers - but infielders as well.

IMO.

Its,

I hate to switch sides (foolish pride) but I think the unfriendly scorekeeper is on to something here.

I think the double whammy of balls being hit and arm injuries make sense.

Maybe what scorekeeper says about the actual statistics is correct and the numbers just don’t back up what appears to be an obvious danger. The numbers involving arm surgery is a real hot topic right now.

I don’t think anyone here has argued against the many points that included, more offense, longer games, more pitches etc when using metal. That’s because we all know it’s true! These are numbers that can be documented fairly easily.

Wood bats=Less Offense=shorter games=less pitches=less injuries... Makes sense to me!

You did mention a sobering thought, though. They won’t give up without a fight and the battle would be drawn out forever in courtrooms.

PG,

As I said - I think he makes some great points. And the logic is certainly apparent.

I just dont think it is an angle that will have any chance against the bat manufacturers. They would just tangle it all up in numbers - supplied by "paid for scientists".

I think the only way to attack the problem is do things that reduce the demand for metal bats at the source.

And the source starts with the parents - the ones that pay for these things.

Just my opinion.

quote:

Wood bats=Less Offense=shorter games=less pitches=less injuries... Makes sense to me!

Exactly the way the game was suppose to be played, we're not talking rocket science here.

The "crack of the bat" not the pinnnnnng of the bat! I cannot the stand the sound of the metal bat hitting a ball. On the other hand, the sound of a wood bat making sweet spot contact with the ball - priceless.

CV

itinthegame,

Sorry this is long, but you made a lot of good points that need addressed.

It may well not work, but there’s one thing for sure. We know attacking it from the perspective of it being dangerous because of hit balls isn’t working, even a little bit. And although the traditionalists have a good argument just to get the game back to what it used to be, there are more traditionalists dying every day than are coming into the fold, so that’s prolly never gonna be what changes things either. ;-)

The thing this approach has that the others don’t, and I feel is the strongest thing it can play is, it should be easy to gather acceptable facts to support it. After that, the next best thing is, no one’s tried it yet. That means it’s a fresh approach and shouldn’t threaten anyone’s exiting position so badly they’ll reject it out of hand.

Yes, there are a ton of variables in arm health, but like I said, I haven’t heard of even one “expert” saying overuse wasn’t at least a partial cause.

I just thought of this and it may well be nothing, but I’m not the best judge. An ancillary argument to me is, just spending more playing the game is more hazardous than not. FI, forget arm health and getting drilled with a hit ball. Just the fact that the players and everyone else is there at the game longer, means there’s more chances that something will happen.

If it can be proven that games are say 10% longer using metal than wood, to me that’s a significant number. IOW, a 2 hour game would run 2:12 minutes, but I suspect the average difference would be far greater.

How many more players will get injured in those to minutes from anything? How many more coaches, or employees needed to run the facility for a game might have something happen to them? Heck, how many more fans are gonna trip and fall, or even have a heart attack?

Mebbe that’s way off track, but I’d think it would have to be computed into the final formula too.

You’re correct, there may well be an argument about how all the P’s in days of yore threw hundreds of pitches every day from 5YO’s to 50YOs. But as far as I know, that would be an argument of conjecture against fact because records of number of pitches don’t go back very far at all for the ML, let alone for colleges, HS, or kiddyball.

That may well change with LLI now making pitch counts mandatory, but its never been an issue in the past.

Then too, there’s the additional fact that even the pros now believe in pitch counts. They certainly must have some evidence that that makes a difference in something or they darn sure would be having pitchers throw until the cows came home. ;-)

It is a difficult problem, but everyone throwing up their hands in defeat, or no one trying any change isn’t gonna help anyone.

I agree that the best approach probably is the hit ‘em in the pocketbook, but using this other approach doesn’t preclude that one from being used too. In fact, it seems to me that the more parents and coaches who actually get to see the facts, the more quickly they’d push for more wood bat options.

As far as I know, no one is saying there’s no difference in exit speeds at all. The problem is, at least for BESR, since the test criteria covers such a very small range of possibilities, every non-wood bat can easily meet them, but still way outperform wood as the variables change.

FI, the point where the ball meets the bat for BESR is 6” from the end of the bat. It doesn’t address that a ball might hit 8” away from the barrel that would probably break a wood bat, or 4” from the end which would prolly also break wood, or at least put bees in the batter’s hands. Heck, where does the criteria say the metal bats can’t perform better there than wood does at the 6” point? Here’s the white paper, mebbe someone can tell me where I’m wrong.
http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/BESRWhitePaper.pdf

I don’t think any part of the debate should be pushed aside. A good general doesn’t stop using his weakest assets, he just doesn’t send them into the teeth of the enemy’s finest. How much success would we have had if we sent raw recruits against the Republican Guard?

But that doesn’t meant those recruits don’t play an important part in the plan.

PGStaff,

Sorry it took so long to thank you for the courtesy of reading what I had to say and giving it serious thought. I appreciate it very much, and not just because you think there’s value in it.

May I ask if you have access to a data base of all this neat data that can be shared? If you do, or know of others that have similar information, I would love to get my hands on it and see what kind of numbers and correlations I could come up with, and I daresay there are others who would like to get that data too.

High Schools in Texas don't buy the kids bats. So its not an extra cost for the school districts only for parents. I think I can buy a lot of wood bats for the One metal bat that I just bought for $378.00. Son has been using the same DBAT bat for over a year now in Fall league and in the cage.

Thank you Beast Ive been saying that for years. My son has not had the same metal bat for more than one year since he started HS. High school season , summer season , fall season , bat is toast. I dont see where cost is an issue for parents. Three wood bats for the cost of one metal bat. Since when has cost stopped any of us from doing anything with baseball. It sure has not stopped me.

Some quick thoughts on this.....

Wood vs metal - I tend to agree that a ball hit on the sweet spot will have about the same exit velocity with either bat material. The huge difference is the hits towards the handle and end of the barrel. With the increased sized sweet spot, there's an creased risk for injury with metal bats.

Performance - some of you have mentioned how little Johnny's daddy wants him to look good and metal gives him an edge. My counter to that is IF they only have wood to use, it's all relative. Little Johhny will still hit it further than his teammates, just not as far as with metal (in some cases).

I had one more point but work interrupted my train of thought.

Coach May, I believe that last years models just get a new paint job. How much can you improve metal? If you painted all the kids bats on your team the same color the kids would probably end up using the same bat. Hitters can hit with any bat. Its NOT THE BAT!

quote:

Originally posted by The Beast:
I believe that last years models just get a new paint job. How much can you improve metal?

GASP!!! Please tell us you're pulling our legs.

quote:

Originally posted by The Beast:
Coach May, I believe that last years models just get a new paint job.

For the most part, you're absolutely right. That is why I always bought last year's models at cheap closeout prices.

B, absolutely if everyone HAS to use wood, then fine. But as long as metal is an option, lil Johhny's dad will buy it in hopes of giving lil Johnny an edge. How else do you think they manage to sell those welded together coke cans for $350?

quote:

Originally posted by Texan:
B, absolutely if everyone HAS to use wood, then fine. But as long as metal is an option, lil Johhny's dad will buy it in hopes of giving lil Johnny an edge.

But take that option (metal) out of the equation.

My son loves hitting monster shots with metal as much as the next kid. But he also REALLY enjoys hitting with wood....and maybe even more fulfilling is pitching against it. We played a DH last summer against a team and we were required to use wood. My son got the start in game 2 and about the 2nd or 3rd inning he brought a FB inside on the hitter....SNAP! I think his grin was bigger doing that than any dinger he ever hit.

I'm all for it. Texan Son is a pitcher, he loves throwing in wood bat tourneys.

quote:

Originally posted by Beezer:
Some quick thoughts on this.....

Wood vs metal - I tend to agree that a ball hit on the sweet spot will have about the same exit velocity with either bat material. The huge difference is the hits towards the handle and end of the barrel. With the increased sized sweet spot, there's an creased risk for injury with metal bats.
I agree that this is a "big diamond", "big player" issue that wood would fix. On the little field it may be frustrating for all concerned to see a ball stop half way to third on a full swing when metal may actually result in more fielding. LL coaching mentality already has the "weaker" players in the outfield, with wood they would probably have even less action.

Besides LL umpiring has a strikezone as big as a fridge, the wood sweet spot would seldom be hit because the ball is seldom there which I believe is a point that has not been factored into this discussion.

Performance - some of you have mentioned how little Johnny's daddy wants him to look good and metal gives him an edge. My counter to that is IF they only have wood to use, it's all relative. Little Johhny will still hit it further than his teammates, just not as far as with metal (in some cases).
Again, a "Big Field" statement that is probably agreed with across the board. On the "Little Field" we talk about dads who want Johnnie to hit it farther than Billy. We don't talk about Timmy's dad who wants the lil' guy to at least have a chance to one-hop it out of the infield. My bet is our kids had a level of success throughout little league that was matched by only by a small group in the league. Most in those league didn't have near the talent our kids had. This debate is comprised of opinions of parents whos kids that were successful, most others do not fall in that catagory during the "Little diamond" years. The next statement here is "they should be taught". Heck, the ol' man doesn't make an effort as it is, will he if it takes even more effort.

We sit on a throne with other parents of good baseball players. Most feel, including myself, that bottom line wood is the way. We however are a minority in the BIG picture of LL participants. This is an issue where conceptually we are probably right, but, realistically, we don't put food on those tables, tuck those kids in after he gets his first hit in 5 games, or see the smile on their face when they get a shiny bat like the rest of the guys on the team. Those things are hard hard to fight against.

My comments are directed to the little diamond only. If you want to teach your kid at that time to use wood he will be ahead in the long run. But I think there are a lot of "sellable" arguments from the other side that puts a halt to ang grassroot movement that goes back to a "wood only world".

Say that 3 times fast

I as the consumer/parent/and spectator of a HS son in the year 2007, would like to have the pleasure of a choice between a wood bat league and metal bat league.
I know my son as the player would also appreciate this choice.

Unfortunately we are not offered this variety except for an occasional/rare wood bat tournament.

My thoughts are to give the players/parents a choice and let the registration numbers speak for themselves.

I know we for one, would be first in line for wood.

Not because of statistical data, or " scare " data, simply because of what we feel wood brings to the overall game.

P.S.

Texan,

quote:

That is why I always bought last year's models at cheap closeout prices.

Looks like you and I went to the same bat bargain school for parents! ha!

I swear they come out with a new paint job on the same bat and try to market it with the same mentality as the toothbrush industry.

Basic toothbrush model .99 cents: bristles on a rod.
Next years model,..new colors and bristles arranged in a new pattern with squishy improved state of the art gel handle, now $2.79

The sad part,...consumers fall for it.

No gel handle is gonna get my teeth cleaner.
No supersonic bat is going to make my son hit a grand slam.

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:
We sit on a throne with other parents of good baseball players.

Part of me says "Yes, you're right. How selfish of me. What was I thinking?" But then I think too that maybe there should be a deliniation. Let rec leagues continue to use metal if they want. But maybe have USSSA, AAU, etc switch to wood for the more serious players?

EDIT: I would mandate the change to wood at 14u minimum, if not even 13u.....just like metal cleats.

It's always been my understanding that because wood bats "broke" and aluminum didn't, the migration to metal initiated to save money. Three aluminum bats of different sizes (at $40-50 each) would more than make it through a high school's season, whereas 30 wood bats (at $20-25 each) might not. Research and development of the new material began and, as usual, "it was fixed 'til it broke."

I went to undergraduate on a tennis scholarship in the 1970s...long enough ago to remember Roscoe Tanner, who was then considered a "freak" for his ability to serve consistently in the 120 MPH range. During last week's Australian Open, Serena Williams (and a few other women) regularly hit 120 and many "cruised" at well over 110 on their first serves. Now, I'm not qualified to speculate on whether they might be hormonally "enhanced," but even ten years ago Steffi Graff would occasionally hit 110+ and Michael Chang (whom no one would ever characterize as "enhanced" in ANY fashion) 115+.

To the "Beast" I say racquet, club, or bat, "It's the MATERIAL" and, at $378, it BETTER be.

kb2610,

Interesting you chose tennis to use as an example. Most of the time I see golf used to illustrate the same thing, but I’ve see the same analogy used for darn near every sport where there has been significant equipment evolution.

There’s no doubt the improvement in physical ability has increased, but nowhere near the increased performance of most sports equipment, and baseball is certainly no exception.