To continue this discussion.
When more hits are made and more runs scored because the metal bats, then coaches use "untested" pitchers which of course yields more hits, more errors and more runs and a longer game.
In 26 years of Area Code and Goodwill Series games, our 7 inning games with wood bats rarely exceed 2 hours and the 9 inning games 2.5 hours.
Bob
I think MLB could score a major public relations coup if they were to get a half million dollars donation from each club and this money was used to buy wooden bats for every college in the US. $15 million would buy a lot of bats. This would save clubs the money they waste drafting guys who are unproven and sometimes flop with wooden bats. Maybe there would be a trickle down effect to go wooden-only at younger ages also. Perhaps the price of wooden bats would decline due to manufacturing volume increases. One team will throw away millions overpaying numerous flops or bidding against themselves--I'm talking about you, Texas Rangers--but when it comes to common sense investments teams come up short.
Years ago, MLB offered wood bats to the top schools and NCAA turned this down.
Maybe Jerry or CD have the complete story.
Bob
Maybe Jerry or CD have the complete story.
Bob
I wasn't aware of that Mr. Williams--very interesting and I would like to hear the rest of that story.
We've all seen Major League pitchers seriously or very nearly seriously injured by balls hit by wooden bats. This however is more of an acceptable risk due to the fact that these are grown professionals who are extremely well compensated. The problem really arises when amateurs who for the most part are playing for the love of the game in college and lower amateur leagues. We owe these youngsters more protection than they're getting. Also at the lower levels, there are far less hitters who can achieve the velocity off the bat that professional hitters can. I also have to totally disagree with anyone who insists that metal bats have jacked up velocities off the bat. When using my Stalker I often pick up ball speeds off the bat and I've gotten mediocre high school hitters from 90 to 100 MPH.
We've all seen Major League pitchers seriously or very nearly seriously injured by balls hit by wooden bats. This however is more of an acceptable risk due to the fact that these are grown professionals who are extremely well compensated. The problem really arises when amateurs who for the most part are playing for the love of the game in college and lower amateur leagues. We owe these youngsters more protection than they're getting. Also at the lower levels, there are far less hitters who can achieve the velocity off the bat that professional hitters can. I also have to totally disagree with anyone who insists that metal bats have jacked up velocities off the bat. When using my Stalker I often pick up ball speeds off the bat and I've gotten mediocre high school hitters from 90 to 100 MPH.
quote:I also have to totally disagree with anyone who insists that metal bats have jacked up velocities off the bat. When using my Stalker I often pick up ball speeds off the bat and I've gotten mediocre high school hitters from 90 to 100 MPH.
Correct me if I'm taking this the wrong way, but those statements seem to disagree with each other. "Mediocre high school hitters" with exit speeds of "90 to 100" seems "jacked up" to me.
I agree with PG that it is obvious to those around the game that metal bats are the more dangerous bats. Not that wood bats can't cause some danger, but metal is more dangerous.
I think it's also obvious that when people suggest the use of headgear on defense, their intent is to protect the players from danger. But why not subtract equipment from the game instead of add equipment. Take metal bats out. For me, it's simple logic to not add too many things to a game that's existed for well over a century. Maybe we should realize that letting metal bats into the game was the first mistake.
There are a few posts earlier in this thread, and elsewhere on the board, touting the durability of composite wood bats. How many HS players were critically injured by batted balls from wood bats? That may be unfair question, I know. But, IMO, it is an axiom that eliminating metal bats can reduce risk as much if not more than introducing headgear for pitchers.
Another point that I have seen mentioned in this thread is the higher level of skill that it takes to hit well consistently with a wood bat. 'Consistently' is the key word in that statement. I see two major factors for this: 1) the sweet spot on a metal bat is significantly larger. 2) the barrel on a metal bat is lighter and therefore easier to get though the zone. What it comes down to, IMO, is that you have to be more skilled and stronger to hit consistently with a wood bat.
Alright, I've already gone on way too much.
---------------------
What I meant by mediocre is I've seen guys in our 2A division that are .260 high school hitters square a ball up and hit it with a velocity of 90 to 100MPH. These are guys I've seen multiple times. The more elite hitters that I've gotten, especially those 17 and up hit with velocities of 95 to 105 and one guy exceeded that. My point is that you do not even have to be one of the really good hitters to once in awhile hit a ball at 90 plus with metal. You see much slower average bat velocities when you happen to catch one with wood. The truly good hitters are dangerous either way.
This discussion had led to one thing. People within the national baseball community(influential) need to take a stand and bring wood back.
Maybe somebody should ask each college team to show up using wood bats, and continue to do so by choice. Then, the NCAA would have no power/leverage.
It would take 100% non-wood bat boycott.
All for one, and one for all!
Maybe somebody should ask each college team to show up using wood bats, and continue to do so by choice. Then, the NCAA would have no power/leverage.
It would take 100% non-wood bat boycott.
All for one, and one for all!
quote:Originally posted by Three Bagger:
What I meant by mediocre is I've seen guys in our 2A division that are .260 high school hitters square a ball up and hit it with a velocity of 90 to 100MPH. These are guys I've seen multiple times. The more elite hitters that I've gotten, especially those 17 and up hit with velocities of 95 to 105 and one guy exceeded that. My point is that you do not even have to be one of the really good hitters to once in awhile hit a ball at 90 plus with metal. You see much slower average bat velocities when you happen to catch one with wood. The truly good hitters are dangerous either way.
So, you do agree that metal bats have jacked up exit speeds off the bat?
-----------------------
quote:Originally posted by 30bombs:
Maybe somebody should ask each college team to show up using wood bats, and continue to do so by choice. Then, the NCAA would have no power/leverage.
This thought definitely crossed my mind. I think the important point is that it will come down to the individuals that have the biggest influence on the game. I guess I'm not sure exactly who those people would be. But I am sure that those people would have a lot of work to do and they would need to have the proper motivation.
It's a long shot at this point but it is possible.
quote:If concern during a game exceeds the fun and enjoyment, then Houston, there is a problem.
If you fear a kid taking the mound versus looking forward to it hoping he does well, then why even play the game.
30bombs--
I didn't catch this point before but it is a very good one. I think it really exemplifies the need for a change.
-----------------
I suspect that head protection for pitchers is a good idea, and I am very much in favor of wood (or at least solid) bats.
But be careful about using safety to justify banning metal bats..... because
Metal bats are safer than wood bats!
No, I'm not joking, although it depends on what we mean by safer.
As an example, let's take the study cited by ClevelandDad back on page 3 of this thread. They compared injuries among a group of college D1, D2, and D3 pitchers to pitchers in summer wood bat leagues.
One group only had "contusions" for injuries. Nasty bruises and soreness, but enough to restrict participation. The other group had mostly contusions, but also had a skull fracture, 2 facial fractures, and a concussion. Speaking as a parent of a pitcher, the injuries of the second group--head injuries--are the ones which worry me, and I consider that group to be the dangerous one.
But there's a different way to look at it. The contusions-only group had 3 times more injuries (per ball in play) than the group with fractures. That's three times more dangerous!
So, which is more important: the injury rate or the severity of the injuries?
Ok, the study has a flaw (and the authors recognize it). The wood bat leagues--which had the more severe injuries--have on average better and more powerful hitters. Probably the higher skill level is mainly responsible for the head injuries rather than the use of wood bats.
Now consider high school baseball, where I'm concerned that using safety as the reason to ban metal bats may backfire. If players use wood bats, we can predict that there will be more (yes, more) injuries than if players use metal bats. But we can also predict the injuries will be less severe.
Here's why: The weight distribution in metal bats favors a quicker and faster swing than a wood bat. But there's very little mass behind the ball at impact and absent the trampoline effect, the ball exit speed would be lower than with a wood bat, even though the wood bat is moving more slowly. The rules limit the trampoline effect of a metal bat to a level so that it just makes up for the unfavorable mass distribution, and the ball exit speed is the same as a good wood bat.
However, the trampoline effect becomes more pronounced as the speed of the ball-bat collision goes up, and players who generate more bat speed than is used in the testing can achieve 5-10% more ball exit speed than with a wood bat. This is the dangerous scenario that folks on a baseball message board tend to worry about.
Most of us don't think about how this works for the majority of HS hitters, who generate less bat speed than is used during testing. For all those hitters, the situation is reversed: they can hit the ball harder with a wood bat. Sure, with metal they'll hit more balls into play, more balls into fair territory, foul off more pitches, and generally reap benefit from a light barrelled bat. But when they can put on their best swing, on a mistake pitch right down the middle (which is needed at any level in order to powerfully hit the ball back at the pitcher), then they'll get more batted ball speed using a wood bat. It may be counter-intuitive, but most of the hitters in high school are more likely to injure a pitcher if they are using a wood bat.
If the bat manufacturers need to respond to a wide safety-based initiative to ban metal bats, I expect they'll point this out. Lobbyists for metal bat makers may be successful in getting "safer" to mean lowest injury rate, rather than the incidence of severe injury . If so, metal may be "proven" to be safer.
Apparently I don't have a very high opinion of the sophistication of our lawmakers.
Just so it's clear, I think that metal (and other hollow bats which can trampoline) are obviously more dangerous than wood bats. And that's because I care about head injuries far more than I do about an ugly purple mark and a couple of days of stiffness.
But be careful about using safety to justify banning metal bats..... because
Metal bats are safer than wood bats!
No, I'm not joking, although it depends on what we mean by safer.
As an example, let's take the study cited by ClevelandDad back on page 3 of this thread. They compared injuries among a group of college D1, D2, and D3 pitchers to pitchers in summer wood bat leagues.
One group only had "contusions" for injuries. Nasty bruises and soreness, but enough to restrict participation. The other group had mostly contusions, but also had a skull fracture, 2 facial fractures, and a concussion. Speaking as a parent of a pitcher, the injuries of the second group--head injuries--are the ones which worry me, and I consider that group to be the dangerous one.
But there's a different way to look at it. The contusions-only group had 3 times more injuries (per ball in play) than the group with fractures. That's three times more dangerous!
So, which is more important: the injury rate or the severity of the injuries?
Ok, the study has a flaw (and the authors recognize it). The wood bat leagues--which had the more severe injuries--have on average better and more powerful hitters. Probably the higher skill level is mainly responsible for the head injuries rather than the use of wood bats.
Now consider high school baseball, where I'm concerned that using safety as the reason to ban metal bats may backfire. If players use wood bats, we can predict that there will be more (yes, more) injuries than if players use metal bats. But we can also predict the injuries will be less severe.
Here's why: The weight distribution in metal bats favors a quicker and faster swing than a wood bat. But there's very little mass behind the ball at impact and absent the trampoline effect, the ball exit speed would be lower than with a wood bat, even though the wood bat is moving more slowly. The rules limit the trampoline effect of a metal bat to a level so that it just makes up for the unfavorable mass distribution, and the ball exit speed is the same as a good wood bat.
However, the trampoline effect becomes more pronounced as the speed of the ball-bat collision goes up, and players who generate more bat speed than is used in the testing can achieve 5-10% more ball exit speed than with a wood bat. This is the dangerous scenario that folks on a baseball message board tend to worry about.
Most of us don't think about how this works for the majority of HS hitters, who generate less bat speed than is used during testing. For all those hitters, the situation is reversed: they can hit the ball harder with a wood bat. Sure, with metal they'll hit more balls into play, more balls into fair territory, foul off more pitches, and generally reap benefit from a light barrelled bat. But when they can put on their best swing, on a mistake pitch right down the middle (which is needed at any level in order to powerfully hit the ball back at the pitcher), then they'll get more batted ball speed using a wood bat. It may be counter-intuitive, but most of the hitters in high school are more likely to injure a pitcher if they are using a wood bat.
If the bat manufacturers need to respond to a wide safety-based initiative to ban metal bats, I expect they'll point this out. Lobbyists for metal bat makers may be successful in getting "safer" to mean lowest injury rate, rather than the incidence of severe injury . If so, metal may be "proven" to be safer.
Apparently I don't have a very high opinion of the sophistication of our lawmakers.
Just so it's clear, I think that metal (and other hollow bats which can trampoline) are obviously more dangerous than wood bats. And that's because I care about head injuries far more than I do about an ugly purple mark and a couple of days of stiffness.
quote:Originally posted by 30bombs:
Maybe somebody should ask each college team to show up using wood bats, and continue to do so by choice. Then, the NCAA would have no power/leverage.
It would take 100% non-wood bat boycott.
All for one, and one for all!
Lotsa luck, the bat companies sponsor these college teams and give them the bats in many instances. What in the world makes you think that the NCAA would ever think of doing the right thing?
The bottom line with the NCAA is the bottom line. That should tell you everything you need to know about college athletics.
Anyone who has been around the game for any length of time knows this:
The baseball comes off the metal bat far faster than a wood bat. In many cases - exponentially so.
The harsh reality is that the NCAA - along with the metal bat companies - are willing to sacrifice your sons and daughters safety - for money. It really is as simple as that.
Both the NCAA and the metal bat companies will twist facts - create eggheaded scientific theories from thin air - and deny any and all obvious truths. For money.
They are complicit, corrupt and hopefully - someday - they will be brought to justice. IMO.
The baseball comes off the metal bat far faster than a wood bat. In many cases - exponentially so.
The harsh reality is that the NCAA - along with the metal bat companies - are willing to sacrifice your sons and daughters safety - for money. It really is as simple as that.
Both the NCAA and the metal bat companies will twist facts - create eggheaded scientific theories from thin air - and deny any and all obvious truths. For money.
They are complicit, corrupt and hopefully - someday - they will be brought to justice. IMO.
quote:Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
I suspect that head protection for pitchers is a good idea, and I am very much in favor of wood (or at least solid) bats.
But be careful about using safety to justify banning metal bats..... because
Metal bats are safer than wood bats!
No, I'm not joking, although it depends on what we mean by safer.
As an example, let's take the study cited by ClevelandDad back on page 3 of this thread. They compared injuries among a group of college D1, D2, and D3 pitchers to pitchers in summer wood bat leagues.
One group only had "contusions" for injuries. Nasty bruises and soreness, but enough to restrict participation. The other group had mostly contusions, but also had a skull fracture, 2 facial fractures, and a concussion. Speaking as a parent of a pitcher, the injuries of the second group--head injuries--are the ones which worry me, and I consider that group to be the dangerous one.
But there's a different way to look at it. The contusions-only group had 3 times more injuries (per ball in play) than the group with fractures. That's three times more dangerous!
So, which is more important: the injury rate or the severity of the injuries?
Ok, the study has a flaw (and the authors recognize it). The wood bat leagues--which had the more severe injuries--have on average better and more powerful hitters. Probably the higher skill level is mainly responsible for the head injuries rather than the use of wood bats.
Now consider high school baseball, where I'm concerned that using safety as the reason to ban metal bats may backfire. If players use wood bats, we can predict that there will be more (yes, more) injuries than if players use metal bats. But we can also predict the injuries will be less severe.
Here's why: The weight distribution in metal bats favors a quicker and faster swing than a wood bat. But there's very little mass behind the ball at impact and absent the trampoline effect, the ball exit speed would be lower than with a wood bat, even though the wood bat is moving more slowly. The rules limit the trampoline effect of a metal bat to a level so that it just makes up for the unfavorable mass distribution, and the ball exit speed is the same as a good wood bat.
However, the trampoline effect becomes more pronounced as the speed of the ball-bat collision goes up, and players who generate more bat speed than is used in the testing can achieve 5-10% more ball exit speed than with a wood bat. This is the dangerous scenario that folks on a baseball message board tend to worry about.
Most of us don't think about how this works for the majority of HS hitters, who generate less bat speed than is used during testing. For all those hitters, the situation is reversed: they can hit the ball harder with a wood bat. Sure, with metal they'll hit more balls into play, more balls into fair territory, foul off more pitches, and generally reap benefit from a light barrelled bat. But when they can put on their best swing, on a mistake pitch right down the middle (which is needed at any level in order to powerfully hit the ball back at the pitcher), then they'll get more batted ball speed using a wood bat. It may be counter-intuitive, but most of the hitters in high school are more likely to injure a pitcher if they are using a wood bat.
If the bat manufacturers need to respond to a wide safety-based initiative to ban metal bats, I expect they'll point this out. Lobbyists for metal bat makers may be successful in getting "safer" to mean lowest injury rate, rather than the incidence of severe injury . If so, metal may be "proven" to be safer.
Apparently I don't have a very high opinion of the sophistication of our lawmakers.
Just so it's clear, I think that metal (and other hollow bats which can trampoline) are obviously more dangerous than wood bats. And that's because I care about head injuries far more than I do about an ugly purple mark and a couple of days of stiffness.
I suspect you are correct that these types of claims would be made by manufacturers of hollow bats. Such claims are not just counter-intuitive, they are flat wrong and mis-informative.
The effective mass behind a hit baseball is a combination of the player and the bat...not just the bat. For any player, total energy transfer to the baseball is a function of that combined mass and bat speed. Hollow bats are designed to be swung faster and will, under all real-world conditions, generate higher exit speeds for any given player.
A possible exception is bunting, where the bat isn't being swung at all...perhaps this is what you are referring to. If bunting with a wood bat proves to be dangerous for pitchers, we should address that too.
If it's important to keep metal bats over money, soften the core of the ball.quote:I think we all agree Wood, not pitching helmets, is the way to maintain the history and purity of the game while protecting our boys!!
quote:Originally posted by RJM:If it's important to keep metal bats over money, soften the core of the ball.quote:I think we all agree Wood, not pitching helmets, is the way to maintain the history and purity of the game while protecting our boys!!
Yeah - change the entire game to satisfy the greed of a select few.
I think not.
quote:Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
"Metal bats are safer than wood bats."
Disagree.
"However, the trampoline effect becomes more pronounced as the speed of the ball-bat collision goes up, and players who generate more bat speed than is used in the testing can achieve 5-10% more ball exit speed than with a wood bat."
Agree.
"Most of us don't think about how this works for the majority of HS hitters, who generate less bat speed than is used during testing. For all those hitters, the situation is reversed: they can hit the ball harder with a wood bat. Sure, with metal they'll hit more balls into play, more balls into fair territory, foul off more pitches, and generally reap benefit from a light barrelled bat. But when they can put on their best swing, on a mistake pitch right down the middle (which is needed at any level in order to powerfully hit the ball back at the pitcher), then they'll get more batted ball speed using a wood bat. It may be counter-intuitive, but most of the hitters in high school are more likely to injure a pitcher if they are using a wood bat."
No comment.
"Just so it's clear, I think that metal (and other hollow bats which can trampoline) are obviously more dangerous than wood bats. And that's because I care about head injuries far more than I do about an ugly purple mark and a couple of days of stiffness."
It really wasn't very clear, mostly because of the statement you put in bold. At least you got to that conclusion somehow.
If you ask the pitchers I wonder what they would say ?
Mine couldn't care less.
Interesting many of you don't accept that bats have been detuned for the last 10 years in order to qualify for use in the NCAA.
Mine couldn't care less.
Interesting many of you don't accept that bats have been detuned for the last 10 years in order to qualify for use in the NCAA.
BHD-
I think a lot, if not most, of the concern is about the high school level. It is still obvious that metal bats produce harder hit balls more often, regardless of how much they have been 'detuned.'
---------------
I think a lot, if not most, of the concern is about the high school level. It is still obvious that metal bats produce harder hit balls more often, regardless of how much they have been 'detuned.'
---------------
I know what the concerns are.
My point is that you will be hard pressed to find a pitcher who agrees.
If you want to avoid risk don't let them drive a car, play football and many other activities that are far more dangerous than pitching against metal or wood bats.
We were fully aware of what I call minimal risk compared to other sports.
Son' Mama wouldn't let him play hockey because it was too dangerous.
My point is that you will be hard pressed to find a pitcher who agrees.
If you want to avoid risk don't let them drive a car, play football and many other activities that are far more dangerous than pitching against metal or wood bats.
We were fully aware of what I call minimal risk compared to other sports.
Son' Mama wouldn't let him play hockey because it was too dangerous.
quote:Interesting many of you don't accept that bats have been detuned for the last 10 years in order to qualify for use in the NCAA.
The Pitchers that don't care likely haven't yet taken a serious blow! Veteran motorcyclists know that it's not a question of "if they will go down but when." I think a Pitcher that plays long enough, faces a similar realization.
And it's also interesting that you believe there is parity in performance between alloy/composite and wood. Perception is reality I guess.
My son was never hit after 4 years of D1 and playing for 4-5 teams while in HS.
I drove a motorcycle for years and never went down. Never had a car crash either.
I drove a motorcycle for years and never went down. Never had a car crash either.
Prime
I have to agree with you--there is a huge difference between playing with aluminum and wood
With wood the game is "cleaner", the pitching gets better and the hitters get better
For me it is a no brainer--"Let's play wood !!!"
I have to agree with you--there is a huge difference between playing with aluminum and wood
With wood the game is "cleaner", the pitching gets better and the hitters get better
For me it is a no brainer--"Let's play wood !!!"
I prefer wood myself because I grew up with wood. That still doesn't mean I would ban non wood or suggest wearing a helmet. As I said you would be hard pressed to find a pitcher who would agree to those changes
You're right. I've gone my whole life without dying. Frankly, I don't know where all this concern about death is coming from.
-------------------
-------------------
This is the thinking that permeates our culture today
Interesting discussion going on here.
IMO, there is only one reason why metal should be banned, because the game is supposed to be played with wood.
Not true that pitchers don't care, if you have a pitcher throwing mid 90's trust me they care.
I personally like the eye gear idea, wonder what I would have to do to get my pitcher to consider that?
My guy is more fearful of flying wood missles than he ever was of anything else. He feels he can defend himself better against one moving object rather than several. However, as a pitcher parent the fear is always there that any object coming back at your pitcher is bad news.
I'll bet if you polled HS and college hitters if they would rather use wood over metal, the general response would be no.
For all those who feel that metal should be banned (not necessarily here), I'll also bet in the past that they have spent lots of money for the bats that produce better results.
IMO, there is only one reason why metal should be banned, because the game is supposed to be played with wood.
Not true that pitchers don't care, if you have a pitcher throwing mid 90's trust me they care.
I personally like the eye gear idea, wonder what I would have to do to get my pitcher to consider that?
My guy is more fearful of flying wood missles than he ever was of anything else. He feels he can defend himself better against one moving object rather than several. However, as a pitcher parent the fear is always there that any object coming back at your pitcher is bad news.
I'll bet if you polled HS and college hitters if they would rather use wood over metal, the general response would be no.
For all those who feel that metal should be banned (not necessarily here), I'll also bet in the past that they have spent lots of money for the bats that produce better results.
Read an aricle this week about a 38 year old guy jogging on the beach in Hilton Head SC while listening to his ipod. He was struck from behind and killed by a small plane that had suffered engine failure and crash landed on the beach. He didn hear or see it coming, and the pilot had no contol. So should we outlaw small planes, ipods , or jogging?
My guy played today and hit one back at the pitcher. It hit the bill of his hat somehow and knocked it off his head. Hit a hard come backer yesterday also, about took the pitchers head off. I prefer wood by far...
And whether we are using wood or metal, we always get the best we can afford. But son just got a new EXO and 3 weeks later he has flattened it out already. That dosn't happen with wood.
And whether we are using wood or metal, we always get the best we can afford. But son just got a new EXO and 3 weeks later he has flattened it out already. That dosn't happen with wood.
"Should pitchers wear helmets?"
ABSOLUTELEY NO WAY, NOT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This type of liberal "we have to fix and/or control everything" type of thinking is what is wrong with so much of America these days. Every time something happens, those on the left think 'we have to fix this' and they could not be more wrong.
Remember all the things we used to do before some politician passed a law to make it safer? Do they really think that they know better than society in general, what is best for us and that 'they' need to protect us from ourselves. GIVE ME A BREAK!
Baseball, like so many other activities, is a sport where one voluntarily assumes risk. Very rarely, someone is seriously injured and that is very unfortunate, but just because a tragic accident happens does NOT mean that some idiot politician needs to get involved and pass a law to make baseball something it is not.
If you're not inclined to play the game the way it is, please stay away. I have no tolerance for idiot liberals who think they need to control everything in society, and having pitchers wear helmets would be just one more example of this malignant thinking.
OK...rant over, glad I got that off my chest!
ABSOLUTELEY NO WAY, NOT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This type of liberal "we have to fix and/or control everything" type of thinking is what is wrong with so much of America these days. Every time something happens, those on the left think 'we have to fix this' and they could not be more wrong.
Remember all the things we used to do before some politician passed a law to make it safer? Do they really think that they know better than society in general, what is best for us and that 'they' need to protect us from ourselves. GIVE ME A BREAK!
Baseball, like so many other activities, is a sport where one voluntarily assumes risk. Very rarely, someone is seriously injured and that is very unfortunate, but just because a tragic accident happens does NOT mean that some idiot politician needs to get involved and pass a law to make baseball something it is not.
If you're not inclined to play the game the way it is, please stay away. I have no tolerance for idiot liberals who think they need to control everything in society, and having pitchers wear helmets would be just one more example of this malignant thinking.
OK...rant over, glad I got that off my chest!
There is a recall on a Bauer hockey stick because there is lead in the paint. When was the last time you sucked on a hockey stick ?
There definitely is a craziness out there.
There definitely is a craziness out there.
I would almost bet that if you took a poll on who was defending metal that the majority would be under about 44-45 years old.
The reason I say that is it may be quite possible that those folks dont know what using wood really is. Yea they take BP and yea they may play in wood bat tournaments.... But there is no way they want to use something that does not give them the edge that the metals provide.
All I have used in my life is metal now you dont want me hitting 450 foot bombs? I have a huge investment in this bat. Wood feels to heavy and I cant swing it the same. Dont forget it gives me some hope when a pitcher can try to take command of the inside part of the plate. And if I get fooled on an outside pitch I might be able to lunge and just stick this metal wonder out there one handed and catch a flair to right field.
The reason I say that is it may be quite possible that those folks dont know what using wood really is. Yea they take BP and yea they may play in wood bat tournaments.... But there is no way they want to use something that does not give them the edge that the metals provide.
All I have used in my life is metal now you dont want me hitting 450 foot bombs? I have a huge investment in this bat. Wood feels to heavy and I cant swing it the same. Dont forget it gives me some hope when a pitcher can try to take command of the inside part of the plate. And if I get fooled on an outside pitch I might be able to lunge and just stick this metal wonder out there one handed and catch a flair to right field.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
There is a recall on a Bauer hockey stick because there is lead in the paint. When was the last time you sucked on a hockey stick ?
There definitely is a craziness out there.
They were most likely afraid of getting lead into the wounds that occur from getting slashed by the hockey stick.
That's very simplistic 06catcherdad.
I have talked with people from all over the political spectrum who favor helemts and face guards on fielders and I have talked to others across the political spectrum who are opposed to the wearing of helmets and face guards.
It's always easy and neat to categorize and pigeon hole those we disagree with, but it isn't always correct.
Remember, it was Richard Nixon, hardly liberal, who signed the legislation that required automakers to outfit all autos with seatbelts.
I have talked with people from all over the political spectrum who favor helemts and face guards on fielders and I have talked to others across the political spectrum who are opposed to the wearing of helmets and face guards.
It's always easy and neat to categorize and pigeon hole those we disagree with, but it isn't always correct.
Remember, it was Richard Nixon, hardly liberal, who signed the legislation that required automakers to outfit all autos with seatbelts.
One thing to remember is that helmets on pitchers would be a radical change for baseball while going back to all wood would just be going back to the way baseball was played for most of its existance. Like the cookie cutter mutiple sport stadiums of the 60's and 70's and astroturf, metal bats seemed like a good idea at the time. We've gone back to old style stadiums and grass fields and I think wooden bats would be a great step in the right direction also.
In another thread, a poster was folowing a game that was 29 to 13 in the ninth, while yesterday my son's team scored 19 runs in each game of a doubleheader. Wooden bats might also bring a balance to the college game besides the safety factor.
I'd really hate for this thread to get political. This thread is too good to ruin.
I just think we should keep focusing on baseball.
--------------------
I just think we should keep focusing on baseball.
--------------------
Without using the term "liberal idiots" I do care about keeping government out of baseball. I will label myself. I'm a right leaning libertarian. Let baseball decide what's best for baseball. If the government bans metal and pitchers still get injured, and they will, what will the government legislate next? Will they make high school play with RIF balls? Will they make pitchers wear helmets? Will they legislate L screens in front of pitchers? I don't want the government in my life any more then necessary.
If the government bans metal bats the bat companies will go to court. If baseball decides to ban metal bats it's a choice. The bat companies will have to comply with market forces. Which avenue makes more sense to people here? If you want change start protesting to the baseball organizations. Start at the youth sports level. Take over the board at the next elections and "choose" wood.
How about pro-wood activism. The bumper stickers could say "Choose Wood." We have nobody to blame but ourselves if all that's done is complain on a chat board.
If the government bans metal bats the bat companies will go to court. If baseball decides to ban metal bats it's a choice. The bat companies will have to comply with market forces. Which avenue makes more sense to people here? If you want change start protesting to the baseball organizations. Start at the youth sports level. Take over the board at the next elections and "choose" wood.
How about pro-wood activism. The bumper stickers could say "Choose Wood." We have nobody to blame but ourselves if all that's done is complain on a chat board.
I, too, would oppose governmental intervention in baseball. But I think if helmets for defense or a switch in bat material are introduced and enforced, it will be through baseball governing bodies, not the government just as the introdcution of cathers', umpires' and batter's protetive equipment was.
Honestly, government intervention never really crossed my mind when considering this topic. I don't really think they are close to getting involved; but who knows? Since it's been brought up, just for the record, I oppose any government involvement in baseball. If a change needs to made it should come from the people who know the game the best, and it is obvious to me that a govermental busy-body is not one of those people.
---------------------
---------------------