Start Using Wood Now

quote:

Originally posted by 30bombs:

quote:

Originally posted by sportsfan5:


Obviously, the metal -10 drop bats allow the younger and lesser developed (size & strength) players to swing for the fences or produce a quality AB.
JMO

With the size disparities, height and weight of kids 10-14 years old, would also put the younger and lesser developed pitchers at greater risk.

Go look at any 12u travel team. Bet you have 12" and 40 pounds of size difference on each roster. Put the little kid on the mound at 80 pounds against some kid much bigger.

Excellent point. I have been to youth games were there were almost fully developed 12-14 year olds who could hit them like high schoolers.

Why isn't there a similar uproar on this site over the maple grenade? Here is an example of the controversy often ignored by the wood enthusiast.

maple weapon

btw- I do not endorse metal mania because I feel there is a huge legit place for "wood only". However, I need to understand why the negatives about some wood construction is ignored when bat safety is discussed.

Maybe government intervention is needed before serious injuries occur

quote:

therefore the chance of injury is greater in a metal bat game. Exit speed in a lab cannot measure what happens in a real game on the field. It only measures what happens in a lab -- a useless thing.

That is an interesting take. Are there any statistical studies that back that up?

How many games do you attend? If you attend college baseball games. High School baseball games. College wood bat games. High School aged wood bat games. You would not need stats to tell you what you see.

But if you want some stats just do this. Go to a college teams website and look at the ba's. Look at the HR's and extra base hits. Now go to a college wood bat website and look at the ba's. Look at the HR's and extra base hits. Now come back and tell me what those stats tell you.

Extra base hits , Hr's the vast majority of the time are smoked. Now look at the pitchers era's. Look at the K/bb ratios metal vs wood. Now tell me what you see.

By even asking this question it causes me to believe you dont get around to enough games. But go ahead and check out some information and let me know what you find.

quote:

How many games have these lab techs attended? How many of them have actually played the game with wood bats and metal bats? How many of them have had to look at their child laying on a hospital bed with part of their skull missing?

How many young kids will have to die? How many parents will have to go through what Gunnar's parents are having to deal with?

If it saves just one mans life is it worth it? What if its your kid is it worth it then?

Honestly, that isn't exactly fair.

How much padding should the fences have in order to cushion collisions by players going the extra mile? Should we make outfielders wear football gear in order to diminish the potential damage that could occur from two players colliding as they both lay out for a ball? How about metal spikes? Ever seen what kind of damage they can do to a player? Wood bats...they are far too dangerous since they can potentially impale an infielder when a batter splits his bat in two. Have you noticed just how hard the baseballs are lately? Why not just use wiffle balls and plastic bats to eliminate any issues?


The list can go on and on. At some point, we have to realize we can't keep our kids in a protective box. We can't lock them inside forever. We can't ban cars because one day one might hit a person crossing the street. Accidents happen in every sport and no matter what, they will continue to happen. The only way to absolutely save the life you mentioned is to ban the sport all together. I send my son off to school every morning praying to God that he is safe.

Again, the BBCOR rating, at least on the surface, seems to be a great step in toning down the insane performance of current metal and composite bats. I personally see a great advantage to having a metal bat perform at the level of wood. Seems to be the best of all worlds. In the end, if BBCOR doesn’t achieve that goal then you go from there.

"How many games do you attend? If you attend college baseball games. High School baseball games. College wood bat games. High School aged wood bat games. You would not need stats to tell you what you see."

Again, with all due respect, anticdotal evidence isn't relevant to the discussion. How many games are played every year, just in the US? Compare wood vs metal and the number of serious injuries or death by a batted ball. You can't make the comparison you are trying to make until you get to the point where the new BBCOR standard can be used to compare metal to wood.

Why not just let them hit basketballs with pool cues?

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
But if you want some stats just do this. Go to a college teams website and look at the ba's. Look at the HR's and extra base hits. Now go to a college wood bat website and look at the ba's. Look at the HR's and extra base hits. Now come back and tell me what those stats tell you.

Here's the worst case I've ever seen. The following player played in the SEC. Below is the summary from his junior year ...

First team All-American by Collegiate Baseball, American Baseball Coaches Association and Rivals.com. Received second team All-American plaudits by Baseball America and the National Baseball Writers Association ... First-team ABCA All-Region and All-SEC ....Finished the year with a .378 batting average with 20 homers, 23 doubles and 62 RBI, all career highs ... Has 26 multiple hit and 17 multiple RBI games ... Started in 64 of 66 games ... Led team with 20 stolen bases in 26 attempts ... One of only three players nationally to finish with 20 homers and 20 stolen bases ... Reached base safely in 60 of 66 games ....

When contract negotiations broke down he went to play on the Cape. Granted playing on the Cape involves facing pro pitching prospects on a daily basis, but the kid hit .140. End of negotiations. He was drafted lower his senior year.

quote:

Originally posted by td25:
I'm not asking my team to use wood when the team I'm facing is using metal. Its uneven competition.

Im not saying I disagree with you. But to start the movement you may need to take a few losses. Leading by example is always the best way to lead. Even if you lost when using wood, your team would get publicity and praise in your community for standing up and doing whats right even if you lose or get slaughtered. But hopefully the next time you play the same team the other coach will bring wood. Its a gamble thought, but may just be worth it.

I don't believe it would work team by team. The best way to attack this situation is at the high school conference, district/section or state level. Then it becomes more newsworthy.

Taking it down to the grass roots level convince the LL board of a league with a known, visible competitive all-star program to go wood during their regular season.

I wouldn't promote the change in terms of the safety issue. The stats geeks will come out of the woodwork. Promote the change as it's how baseball should be played. My son played almost all wood bat last summer and fall. I can't stand the ping sound anymore.

quote:

Promote the change as it's how baseball should be played.

See, that I could agree with and support 100%.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
I don't believe it would work team by team. The best way to attack this situation is at the high school conference, district/section or state level. Then it becomes more newsworthy..

But you cant control when a meeting will be and if people will show up and if the media will show up. You can control your team, sorta. Unless the parents get upidy and you risk losing your job as someone else stated above. But that might get the coach into the media going 0-10 because the coach would only use wood bats and then got fired.

quote:

Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
Again, the BBCOR rating, at least on the surface, seems to be a great step in toning down the insane performance of current metal and composite bats. I personally see a great advantage to having a metal bat perform at the level of wood. Seems to be the best of all worlds. In the end, if BBCOR doesn’t achieve that goal then you go from there.
...snip snip snip.....
You can't make the comparison you are trying to make until you get to the point where the new BBCOR standard can be used to compare metal to wood.

I recommend that you go back to Nathan's site (or the Kettering University site) and read a wider selection of the materials. You'll find that the trampoline effect is the primary driver of metal bat performance.
Yes, the BBCOR method of limiting bat performance is superior to the BESR method, but it does not ensure that metal bats will have similar performance to wooden bats. Here's what it will do for hits off the sweet spot of the bat:
A) Consider a batter who can swing a wood bat at the same speed that is used in the certification tests. He will be able to produce the same batted ball speed with either wooden or metal bats. That's different from the situation with the BESR, where he could generate about 5MPH more with an optimal metal bat. Batter A) is the basis for Nathan's comments about comparable performance--and he defines performance narrowly. BTW, it is popular to suggest that the test speeds are too low, but if the ball is hit squarely with a good bat path, the test speeds will generate a 400 foot shot using a wooden bat.

B) Batter who can swing a wood bat faster than the speeds used in the tests. He will be able to generate more batted ball speed with a metal bat than with a wood bat.

C) Batter who swings a wood bat more slowly than in the tests. (Rare in college, very typical in high school.) He'll actually get more batted ball speed with a wood bat, when and if he hits the ball on the sweet spot.

Folks who watch college batters, or a really good high school batter will still see higher batted ball speeds from metal bats.

All of the above relates to balls hit on the sweet spot. Most aren't, and the metal bat has a clear batted ball speed superiority with off center hits.

Now, will BBCOR make much difference? I think (but have no way to prove) that the "optimal" bat that I mentioned above is actually not typically used, especially by the top hitters in college, who tend to prefer somewhat heavier bats. I suspect the real reduction in batted ball speeds (sweet spot hits) will only be a couple of MPH. We saw dramatic changes in scoring, batting averages, and home runs in 1998(BESR), and again in 2002 (MOI limits) but that probably won't happen with BBCOR. It will however, be difficult to separate the BBCOR effect from that of banning composites.

quote:

It will however, be difficult to separate the BBCOR effect from that of banning composites.

Great point. They have one year to look at the numbers since this is the last year BESR is the standard for NCAA.

I am trying to read and learn as much as I can about the BBCOR rating just because it is interesting to me on a personal level. I can tell you, as I said before, there is a lot of "stuff" out there to try and wade through. Ironically, it's the physics behind it all that interests me so much and I absolutely hated physics class when I was in school.

I think the bottom line is a couple of different issues have been blurred here. If it is a pure safety issue, BBCOR seems to be a big step in the right direction. Is it the end all be all? Of course not and time will tell if it does make a difference. If it's all about safety, there could be other mandated changes as well such as making helmets mandatory for pitchers and the corners, etc. I can come up with many tragic instances where a player or a coach was hit by a ball batted with a wood bat. The common factor is they were hit in the head by the ball. You either soften the ball or put a helmet on them if the end goal s to eliminate the possibility of that type of injury. I am not saying I am for or against those measures, just pointing out that they make more sense than looking at the bat since again, people get seriously injured or killed by balls hit with wood bats as well.

The other argument is the purity of the game as it pertains to hitting with wood and I completly get that argument too.

Does everyone agree the ball comes off hotter with a metal bat because of trampoline effect?

Does everyone agree a hitter generates more bat speed with a hollow(light) barrel?

Does everyone agree there is a larger sweetspot(margin for error) with a metal bat?

No matter what materials or controls bat manufacturers employ, any non-wood bat with a hollow barrel will be easier to swing than a solid wood bat.

In a college game yesterday, I saw several singles up the middle that would have been handle cracks with a wood bat and outs versus hits. I also saw the frustration on the pitchers face because he made the right pitches and was penalized.

One of the top D1 Home run hitters in his career is averaging a HR every 10 official at bats. In summer ball with wood, one every 35 official at bats.

Over 500 at bats, the player could hit 50 HR's with metal and 14 HR's with wood. Do you think those 36 missed HR's are now fly outs and a drop in batting average of nearly 100 points?

quote:

Originally posted by 1baseballdad:

quote:

therefore the chance of injury is greater in a metal bat game. Exit speed in a lab cannot measure what happens in a real game on the field. It only measures what happens in a lab -- a useless thing.

That is an interesting take. Are there any statistical studies that back that up?

Your kidding right. You go to a lab and get your statistical studies -- I'll go to a game and watch with my own 2 eyes.

quote:

Your kidding right. You go to a lab and get your statistical studies -- I'll go to a game and watch with my own 2 eyes.

No, I am not kidding. Why is it so astounding that someone asks for actual facts to back up an opinion? If I go to a game played with wood bats and see someone seriously injured by a batted ball, does that mean all wood bats are therefore weapons? After all, I saw it with my own two eyes and it wasn't in a lab.

Like it or not, you have to bring in some basis of fact to back up what you are saying.

No one is arguing that current metal bats don't perform better than wood. If you want to correlate that to more injuries on the field, you better have some facts that back that up. Cause and effect. I haven't seen any studies that indicate metal bats have increased the number of injuries by batted balls in baseball and I thought it would be interesting to see if one existed. That is all I was asking since I can't find one.

That being said, for the fifth time I will say again that the new BBCOR standard seems to be the right direction in getting metal bats toned down to the point that they perform more like wood, at least as it to pertains to how fast the ball comes off the bat.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Williams:
Zombywolf;

WHY the advantage, I disagree.

bob

Only because if you took two teams, asked one to play with composite metal and the other with wood, most of the time, you're gonna get the complaint that the team using the composite has an unfair advantage and all things being equal, it's true.

Obviously, playing a superior team with superior pitching won't help the composite hitting team if they can't put the bat on the ball but hitting with metal/composite has the advantage. Again, all things being equal which they aren't.

quote:

Originally posted by 1baseballdad:

quote:

Your kidding right. You go to a lab and get your statistical studies -- I'll go to a game and watch with my own 2 eyes.

No, I am not kidding. Why is it so astounding that someone asks for actual facts to back up an opinion? If I go to a game played with wood bats and see someone seriously injured by a batted ball, does that mean all wood bats are therefore weapons? After all, I saw it with my own two eyes and it wasn't in a lab.

Like it or not, you have to bring in some basis of fact to back up what you are saying.

No one is arguing that current metal bats don't perform better than wood. If you want to correlate that to more injuries on the field, you better have some facts that back that up. Cause and effect. I haven't seen any studies that indicate metal bats have increased the number of injuries by batted balls in baseball and I thought it would be interesting to see if one existed. That is all I was asking since I can't find one.

That being said, for the fifth time I will say again that the new BBCOR standard seems to be the right direction in getting metal bats toned down to the point that they perform more like wood, at least as it to pertains to how fast the ball comes off the bat.

Your facts are flawed. You can't go in a lab and have it give you facts about a game. There are too many variables (ie,ball movement on pitches thrown, person swing the bat, field conditions, weather, time of day or night, on and on) to get facts that come out of a lab. In other words ..... completely useless information. If that is what you want to do, good luck to you and your lab. I will be on the ball field. This BBCOR stuff is just another moniker that the bat companies have come up with to keep justifying their existence. A metal bat will never swing like a wood bat in the "real" game.

quote:

No one is arguing that current metal bats don't perform better than wood. If you want to correlate that to more injuries on the field, you better have some facts that back that up. Cause and effect. I haven't seen any studies that indicate metal bats have increased the number of injuries by batted balls in baseball and I thought it would be interesting to see if one existed. That is all I was asking since I can't find one.

Well, some of the issues with the inability to find one:
Who has the resources to fund it and would be motivated to do so?
There is a difference between increased numbers and increased severity that also need to be considered.
Where is the data base to collect such information with any reasonable degree of accuracy is a 3rd issue, amongst others.
As an illustration, I have a fused distal joint on my ring finger. Was throwing BP from 60'6" and a 15 year old using a metal bat hit a line drive that hit my finger and dissolved that joint.
Where is the data base where I would report that? Who knows if the ER reported it that way if someone did such a study and who knows if the ER information would be collected in such a study?
Acknowledging that metal bats currently outperform wood and the description of his coach and others that the latest catastrophic injury occurred without any time to react, any time, is clear and circumstantial information.
I guess one area where we differ is my view that one injury associated with metal bats that outperform wood is too many. One injury as serious as this one is way too many.
Finally, you have quoted laboratory studies on exit speeds and the like.
Are there studies done from the pitching mound where speed of the ball and time to react have been measured in controlled ways with wood vs aluminum?

OK, for what it is worth, I finally found something concerning safety of wood vs metal bats. I found it on a site called "don't take my bat away" which is apparently is a coalition put together to combat the banning of metal bats. So far, other than a 2002 study, this is all I could find. Incidentally, the study was conducted on behalf of the Illinois High School Association and funded by the National Federation of State High Schools Foundation.

First On-Field Study Comparing Wood to Non-Wood Bats Finds Both Safe


NFHS Comments On IL Field Study

The research project was commissioned by the Illinois High School Association (IHSA), with research
conducted by the School of Kinesiology and Recreation at Illinois State University. Funding was provided by the NFHS Foundation.

“Based on the results of this study, we have determined that using nonwood bats results in a greater number of hits per game and a longer duration of games when compared to wood bats among high school baseball players. However, there was no statistically significant evidence that nonwood bats result in an increased incidence or severity of injury,” said Kevin Laudner, assistant professor in the School of Kinesiology and Recreation at Illinois State and principal investigator for the Illinois bat study.
Thirtytwo IHSA schools submitted data on wood bats from spring 2007 baseball games, and 11 of the 32 reported data for games played both with wood and nonwood bats.

In the 412 games played by the 32 teams using wood bats, there were 368 broken bats, resulting in a batbreakage
rate of 28.3 per 1,000 atbats.
If the bats were just used in games, this rate calculates to 23.49 broken
bats per team for the entire season. Stated another way, a wood bat could be used for an average of 35.5 atbats
before breakage.

More...

The participating schools reported five injuries in games with nonwood bats in a total of 4,682 atbats, compared with two injuries in games with wood bats in a total of 4,462 atbats; however, ISU researchers said, after analysis, these data show that there is no statistical difference in injury rates when using a nonwood bat compared to a wood bat.

Of the seven total injuries, only two caused the players to miss playing time, and neither of those involved a
bat. One player was hit in the face by a pitched ball and another sustained a blister on a finger. None of the injuries
from a batted ball required any player to lose playing time – in either the woodbat
games or the nonwoodbat games.

The idea for the woodbat study came from the Illinois High School Association.

quote:

Originally posted by birdman14:
Your kidding right. You go to a lab and get your statistical studies -- I'll go to a game and watch with my own 2 eyes.

I don't think that 1baseballdad is out of line one bit and while I'm not a blow up all metal bats advocate, I am a wood guy.

For a job I facilitate groups that not only have problems making decisions but also groups whose purpose is to evaluate and recommend products and policy. The most important rules in facilitating is not to rely only on the heart, make sure data is supported in controlled environments, never dismiss an opposing point without authenticated data, and be responsibly futuristic. For these reason I believe the metal bat is here to stay because the wood bat leaders are not willing to support their claim or accept results scientifically. The response of "go and watch a game" does not carry weight in a world that lives on technology IMHO.

This whole discussion bleeds from the heart and is driven by "old school" thinkers (btw- I'm one of you). Whats really surprised me is a question I asked last night about the the "maple grenades" and why that safety issue has not been addressed, and is being ignored. Instead of being hit with a line drive a player will be impaled by wood shrapnel. If all these metal bats go away, the colleges, and elite players are going to want the want the most explosive wood bat available and that is maple. Below is a link that explains the next issue on the table and I ask the wood guys what is the feeling about this problem which is similar to the wood vs metal dilemma.

maple bats

rz1, I appreciate it. I was honestly not trying to be a smart alekc when I asked if the data existed. I just wanted to know if anyone had any hard evidence since I thought it would actually be out "there" somewhere. It also prompted me to look a bit harder for hard statistical facts and so far, the only actual facts or studies I can find conclude metal bats are not any more dangerous than wood bats, which actually surprised me. I expected to see a direct correlation and rise of injuries since metal bats were introduced to the sport.

I am going to keep digging for info and will share it when I come across it.


Here is another I found.


American Legion Baseball Lets Bat Rule Stand

INDIANAPOLIS (May 5, 2005) -- Following a nine-month review, the American Legion’s National Baseball Subcommittee has concluded that there is no substantial evidence in scientific research to support the claim that baseball bats made from wood are “safer” than bats manufactured from metal or composite materials.
The issue has been examined for years. Statistics compiled from numerous studies by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Institute for Sports Science and Safety, were among the several studies considered by The American Legion in reaching their conclusion.
The subject was brought to the national level by Legionnaires in Florida and Montana, where in 2003 an American Legion baseball pitcher died as a result of a head injury from a baseball hit with a metal bat.
“We were concerned then and we are concerned now for the safety of the game and the safety of the young athletes who participate in it,” said Larry Price, Chairman of the subcommittee. “With deference to the family of the young man we have given the matter our fullest attention over the last nine months. We have collected, compiled and distributed for the committee’s study a great deal of technical information, scientific analysis and expert opinion. We have heard from both camps – wood and non-wood – and we have found no clear evidence of unreasonable risk of injury or death with the use of non-wood bats in the game of baseball.”
In a twenty-year study by the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research (1982-2002), 7 deaths of high school aged baseball players were recorded. In that same period, there were 6 deaths in s****r, 20 deaths in track, and 92 deaths associated with football. Price
offered that the game of baseball is one of the safest sports played today in high school and at the college level, noting that, “Injuries and, tragically, deaths occur in nearly every sport. By comparison, death on a baseball diamond is extremely rare.”
Meeting at Indianapolis, Ind. in their semi-annual gathering, the eight-member subcommittee heard from David Cook, president of Hoosier Bat Company and Jim Darby, vice-president for Easton Bat Company. Both are experts in the manufacture and use of wood and non-wood bats, respectively.
“Nearly every amateur baseball organization, from the NCAA to Little League has closely monitored and studied the use and safety of bats. These organizations, about 19 in number, permit teams to use both wood and non-wood bats,” said Price.
Price noted that another three-year independent study on bat safety is being organized. The study is being directed by Dr. Fred Mueller, a member of the USA Baseball Medical and Safety Committee and Director of the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research.
“We look eagerly toward its results,” said Price, “For now, finding no substantial evidence in scientific research on which to base a decision to ban non-wood bats from the field of play, The American Legion will maintain the current rule, which leaves the option for wood bats to the teams that play American Legion ball.”
-- 30 --

Contact: Jim Quinlan, (317) 630-1213.

quote:

"How many games do you attend? If you attend college baseball games. High School baseball games. College wood bat games. High School aged wood bat games. You would not need stats to tell you what you see."

This is why I stated the way to make change is saying wood is the way the game should be played. Trying to make change based on emotion and what you think you see with your eyes will not motivate change.

The statistics don't show higher injury rates with metal versus wood. In fact, due to the low usage of wood bat usage in youth ball the wood numbers could be very skewed. Maybe what the research needs to be is the severity of the injuries with metal versus wood.

The reality is whenever a pitcher is injured and makes national news there's outrage. There's the inevitible legislation to ban metal. Ultimately the ripples settle and the arguement disappears until the next event.

I'll bet if I attempted to start a campaign to move to wood starting with the high school baseball parents, most of them would look at me like I have two heads. They wouldn't get it. They've never seen a serious incident. They're not on chat boards where every time an event occurs there's an extensive discussion.

I do remember back in 12U (five years ago) a local pitcher took a serious shot to his face. It took a year to recover from a bone, muscle and cosmetic standpoint. The only conversations were how hard and far the hitter had hit other balls and how the coach has no business putting that level of a pitcher on the mound against him. The metal bat was never part of the conversation. The story didn't make the paper.

quote:

Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
rz1, I appreciate it.

1bbdad, I'm not out looking for friends and hopefully have not lost any here. I'm a wood guy, leaning to the HS and above wood crowd if it were to go that way. All I'm stating is that IMO we have not allowed bat manufacturers to drop to an acceptable level because that threshold seems to move depending on the beholder. To have a zero tolerance mindset may be noble, it may not be realistic because Americana changes over time, and history proves that in every aspect of our society.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
This is why I stated the way to make change is saying wood is the way the game should be played. Trying to make change based on emotion and what you think you see with your eyes will not motivate change.

The statistics don't show higher injury rates with metal versus wood.

I posted this wood versus metal bat study in the other thread. It does show an increase in junjury using metal.

http://www.dtmba.com/mueller.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
This is why I stated the way to make change is saying wood is the way the game should be played.

If I were a nay-sayer, my next question to you would be...According to who?

There is a study, and Cleveland Dad provided a link in the helmet thread.

You should read this!

It compares injury rates for two classes of competition. NCAA Div 1, 2 and 3 versus a collection of summer woodbat leagues.

In short, the NCAA games provided 3 times as many injuries (defined as a interruption in participation) as the woodbat leagues. However, the NCAA games had no head injuries, no fractures, no concussions, but the wood bat leagues did.

The wood bat games had a lower overall rate of injury, but several injuries were serious. The NCAA games had no serious injuries.

RJM, I am just thankful that no matter what they swing, be it wood or metal, these tragic accidents are very few and far between. As was stated earlier, one is too many. It doesn't matter what material the bat is made of.

From a purity aspect, I wouldn't mind seeing it go to all wood, starting at the JV High School level.

From a safety aspect, the common denominator in the accidents is the ball and a human head. I think more bang for the buck would be found in looking at the ball or mandating helmets for pitchers (although the conservative side of me cringes at the thought of a mandate like that).

At one point, pro hockey players wouldn't dream of wearing a helmet. NASCAR drivers wouldn't wear gloves or full faced helmets. Look at football helmets of the 70's. Look how far those sports have evolved today from a safety standpoint.

quote:

There is a study, and Cleveland Dad provided a link in the helmet thread.

You should read this!

Don't know how I missed that one. I appreciate you bringing it back up and it was a very interesting study.

"It is important to note that the rate of these injuries in the collegiate playing population is very low.
The study followed an average of 48 NCAA and 125 summer league teams for 3 seasons and
observed only 27 and 20 injuries respectively, for a total of 47 injuries total over the 3 years in an
annual average total of 173 teams. In addition, the injuries in summer league play were more severe
than the injuries in NCAA play, since they involved one concussion and three fractures to the head
and face, whereas all the NCAA injuries were contusions."

In other words, the injuries from wood bats were more severe than those from metal. Interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
Don't know how I missed that one. I appreciate you bringing it back up and it was a very interesting study

To add to what I initially said, stats can be misleading if you go in wearing blinders just in order to make a point.

In this case one could say that the numbers seem to point to a wood bat safety issue and I could comment that maybe summer wood league rosters have better college hitters top to bottom, fielding skills may be less, and the pitching may be diluted because the top college pitchers are shut down over the summer. As a result more incidents. There are many comparison issues here IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
This is why I stated the way to make change is saying wood is the way the game should be played.

If I were a nay-sayer, my next question to you would be...According to who?

My argument would be the only reason metal entered the game was cost savings on broken bats. With metal bats costing $300-400 versus wood bats available for under $50, I don't believe the arguement for metal exists anymore. Teams can buy wood in bulk for $15-25 per bat.

quote:

Originally posted by 1baseballdad:

quote:

There is a study, and Cleveland Dad provided a link in the helmet thread.

You should read this!

Don't know how I missed that one. I appreciate you bringing it back up and it was a very interesting study.

"It is important to note that the rate of these injuries in the collegiate playing population is very low.
The study followed an average of 48 NCAA and 125 summer league teams for 3 seasons and
observed only 27 and 20 injuries respectively, for a total of 47 injuries total over the 3 years in an
annual average total of 173 teams. In addition, the injuries in summer league play were more severe
than the injuries in NCAA play, since they involved one concussion and three fractures to the head
and face, whereas all the NCAA injuries were contusions."

In other words, the injuries from wood bats were more severe than those from metal. Interesting.

I would ask if over all those games is four major injuries a significant number to pass judgement. The number of problems with the injuries seems to be at lower levels of ball. From LL through high school there can be tremendous variances in the level of ability on the field. By college the talent funnel has narrowed so much there seems to be less risk of injury.

Also, as you move from high school down to preteen ball the number of players in the game and number of games played is much larger. It starts to come down to percentages where injury occurs, not real numbers. Most of the head injuries I've head of come from pre high school ball.

Conclusion:

1) More games in youth ball, more risk of injury
2) Larger variance in talent level in youth ball, more risk of injury

infielddad,
Read page 6, where they detail the number of teams participating in the study, and the numbers of balls in play, injuries, etc. for each season in the three year study.

In summary, on averaged over the three years, 48 NCAA teams participated, while 125 summer league teams participated. The summer league teams had more than twice as many balls put into play, but that still corresponds to fewer balls in play per team than the NCAA had.

It is worth pointing out that this was not a retrospective study. The teams had to sign up in advance, presumably to try to minimize reporting bias. It wouldn't be easy to get all the NCAA teams to agree to participate.

Thanks.
Now I see that only certain schools(48) had signed up with the NCAA ISS so they were the only ones inputting information subject to the study. To me, that raises more, not less, uncertainty about this study.

quote:

How much padding should the fences have in order to cushion collisions by players going the extra mile? Should we make outfielders wear football gear in order to diminish the potential damage that could occur from two players colliding as they both lay out for a ball? How about metal spikes? Ever seen what kind of damage they can do to a player? Wood bats...they are far too dangerous since they can potentially impale an infielder when a batter splits his bat in two. Have you noticed just how hard the baseballs are lately? Why not just use wiffle balls and plastic bats to eliminate any issues?

Okay so I'm an athletic training student. When I finish my degree I will be a Certified Athletic Trainer (you know, the guys running onto the field after an injury). We are trained to deal with players running into walls, running into each other, dealing with blood. I can treat 90% of these types of injuries without any help. Guess what, pitcher taking a line drive at 110MPH to the face probably is going to lay there until EMS gets there so he can be rushed to the hospital. Quite the difference in injuries, huh? Some are minor occurrences; other one is potentially life-threatening!

I'm all for doing away with metal bats and I also agree that conventional wood bats present a problem do to the breakage factor but isn't there a 3rd option that as far as I can tell has not been discussed here and that is using composite wood bats such as though made by Baum? They're a bit more expensive than wood (around $100+) which is a lot less than metal but are very durable lasting several years while NOT assissting the batter the way metal does.

Seems like a relatively simple and viable solution.

In this debate there are defenders of metal bats. Can you proponents of metal bats give us the reasons why you support their usage.

I don't believe $100 unbreakable wood bats are necessary. Just teach kids how to swing bats properly with wood and they won't break many. When my son's summer team played almost exclusively with wood it was easy to tell who trained with wood. These kids weren't breaking a bunch of bats.

quote:

Originally posted by 30bombs:
In this debate there are defenders of metal bats. Can you proponents of metal bats give us the reasons why you support their usage.

I don't believe anyone is supporting metal bats. What is being said is there may not be the statistical data necessary to make an arguement against metal. It's why I say the arguement should be because it's the way the game should be played.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:

quote:

Originally posted by 30bombs:
In this debate there are defenders of metal bats. Can you proponents of metal bats give us the reasons why you support their usage.

I don't believe anyone is supporting metal bats. What is being said is there may not be the statistical data necessary to make an arguement against metal. It's why I say the arguement should be because it's the way the game should be played.

That's the point!

Some say(NCAA) they provide more excitement and offense. That means they are saying they are easier to hit with.

Some say(NCAA-HS) that they are cost-effective. Wood breaks and needs constant replacement versus the metal companies annually taking the same piece of gunk, painting it a different color duping consumers to shelf the one year old $350 model for the "BETTER ONE"

Go look in your garage. See any of these bats laying around useless?

I have no problem having my 12 year old use wood. I have a problem when he pitches against metal!!

Ok guys just so you know I am not an advocate of metal. I used wood for drills when coaching and I have always prefered and wanted wood. Composites may be a common ground but as I see it it will be like beating your head against a wall to get any change away from metal. Baring gov. intervention.

For this reason....
There are a majority of players that fall into the good player range and the average player range and very few that are truly standouts when it comes to swinging the stick. Take metal away and the good and avg players become the avg and poor hitters. The fisted base hits become stingers and outs. And dont forget the one handed swipe that just clears the infield; they are played by the infielders. The good hitters don't get a bunch of bombs and the avg hitters have no hope of burning the outfield.

Make metal bats that mimic the properties of wood but have durability and maybe I re think the issue.