Start Using Wood Now

quote:

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 argument against metal. It's why I say the argument should be because it's the way the game should be played.

I honestly believe you have hit the nail on the head with that statement. Making this a "safety" issue without supplying factual details backing it up smacks of big brother and turns off most people. I know it shuts me down before the discussion gets rolling.

Yours is an extremely logical way to approach the wood vs. metal debate. As has been demonstrated, wood or metal can create enough force on a baseball to tragically injure (or worse) a pitcher. It isn’t a safety issue. If it was, people would focus on the ball rather than the bat or demand the pitcher wear a helmet.

Integrity is the real argument and the one the NCAA is using... and it is spot on.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
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.

The NCAA ISS has a loophole. Participating teams only have to submit 70% of games and practices for their data to be included. Since the coaches receive paychecks from the bat companies, it's fair to assume that significant numbers of batted-ball injuries just so happen to occur in the 30% of games that don't have to be reported.

If the NCAA switched to wood bats, college coaches would stop getting those checks.

Things to ponder with regards to a baseball wide switch to wood. What would the cost be for wood bats if demand skyrocketed? Would there be enough satisfactory wood? I heard quality ash is in short supply with today's demand. And what role would the environmentalists play as the trees come tumbling down?

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
Things to ponder with regards to a baseball wide switch to wood. What would the cost be for wood bats if demand skyrocketed? Would there be enough satisfactory wood? I heard quality ash is in short supply with today's demand. And what role would the environmentalists play as the trees come tumbling down?

I really dont think baseball bats are gonna deplete the forests. and the environmentalists probably have a bigger fish to fry as far as trees tumbling down - every Christmas Season!

quote:

The NCAA ISS has a loophole. Participating teams only have to submit 70% of games and practices for their data to be included. Since the coaches receive paychecks from the bat companies, it's fair to assume that significant numbers of batted-ball injuries just so happen to occur in the 30% of games that don't have to be reported.

The coaching staffs have nothing to do with the NCAA ISS.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
Things to ponder with regards to a baseball wide switch to wood. What would the cost be for wood bats if demand skyrocketed? Would there be enough satisfactory wood? I heard quality ash is in short supply with today's demand. And what role would the environmentalists play as the trees come tumbling down?

Which brings us back to the composite wood bats that run in price from around $85 - $155 (4 different manufacturers that I found on the net). When you consider that these bats last considerably longer the pro rated cost relative to regular wood bats ($50-$100 each)is no contest. The trees will live much longer. And don't forget the 4th option that is out there. Bamboo. Doesn't take too many trees to make them.

There are simple cost effective solutions to the problem.

quote:

relative to regular wood bats ($50-$100 each)

Wow! My son uses $30-40 wood bats. His team buys additional bats in bulk for about $20 each.

quote:

Wow! My son uses $30-40 wood bats. His team buys additional bats in bulk for about $20 each.

His travel team buys bats for the players? I think the only bat my son's travel team's coach has is a fungo. My son uses a Sam bat and it's a lot more than $30 - $40. Knock on wood, but he didn't break one all last summer or fall.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:

quote:

relative to regular wood bats ($50-$100 each)

Wow! My son uses $30-40 wood bats. His team buys additional bats in bulk for about $20 each.

First off I'd like to apologize for missing the price range by $10-$20. And if someone else is buying bats in bulk does that mean the players are going through them in bulk?

Would it be fair to say that once the price per wood bat gets low enough the concern for trees takes a back seat?

snowball

We also have bats for our kids--they can use their own but we usually have up to 24 maple bats during the season and they last--if we break any, perhaps 1 or 2 a season, our supplier replaces them free of charge


Also regarding bamboo bats -- what about the Pandas---just another environmental group to get involved

So, regarding the safety of our kids are composite wood and bamboo bats viable economic alternatives to today's high tech bats?

quote:

Making this a "safety" issue without supplying factual details backing it up smacks of big brother and turns off most people. I know it shuts me down before the discussion gets rolling.

Sorry, but I have a real hard time with your comments it is not a safety issue because there are a lack of "factual details" that the increased speed causes more injuries or more serious injuries.
Safety assessments are usually designed to identify increases in the "risk" of injury so steps are taken to lower the "risk" or provide a greater degree of protection to minimize the risk?
Factual details came out in the lawsuit in Montana and other situations where the experts, believed by the jury, provided evidence that a ball coming off a metal bat reached the pitcher's mound/head faster than a human is able to react. The fact that only a few pitchers might get hit because the ball is by them "before" they are able to react does not mean there is not an increase in the "risk" of injury.
Today, there is a news article and video of a USF pitcher getting hit in the head during Fall ball. Until the situation in Marin County, what happened last Fall at USF was totally unknown outside of USF and it would not have been captured by the NCAA approach either it seems. The head coach at USF acknowledges aluminum is a safety issue for a number of reasons, including a much larger sweet spot.
What you seem to be saying is there are no studies correlating with injury and serious injury. Proving people get hurt is not the only way to assess safety and "risk" of injury. It is one way. It is not the only way.
Just my view but to say it isn't a safety issue until there are sufficient and adequate studies correlating with injury isn't the way I would approach this.
Since science and engineering have proven current bats have exits speeds faster than wood, which you acknowledge, and other evidence is the ball generated at such speeds reaches 56-58 feet before a pitcher can humanly react, that is a safety issue and proven increase in the "risk" of injury, for me at least.
Metal creates a higher "risk" than wood. We are not talking about preventing injury, we are talking about lowering the "risk" of injury.
Both create some risk. Safety would advocate toward taking those steps which lower risks of injury.
From where I sit, the argument you are making seems similar to the position the NFL had been taking on head trauma and repeated head trauma with the "risk" of concussion. For many, many years they took the position there was no proof that repeated head trauma caused long term consequences or created any increased "risk." It took slicing the brains of deceased players and a change in their medical advisory panel to get some acknowledgment concerning the "risk."
How many pitchers need to get hit in the head or anywhere for that matter to agree the "risk" is increased? How many near misses would there need to be proven to acknowledge that even though no one got hit or injured, the "risk" still higher?

Here is a must read article from the Marin Journal that lawmakers are now considering this issue in California:

Lawmakers and Administraters Consider Ban on Metal Bats

An interesting quote in the article is from Fredrick Mueller who was the co-author of the wood versus metal study cited in this thread. Here is a quote from Mueller:

quote:

Frederick Mueller, director of the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research at the University of North Carolina, said there are no conclusive studies that show there are more injuries in games played with wooden bats versus those played with metal bats.

"These things happen, and I feel bad for the kid and the family," Mueller said, "but there's still no good research to show metal bats are more dangerous. There hasn't been that many cases where a kid is hit with a ball off a metal bat like this. I don't think you can ban something because of a couple of cases around the country."

Everybody agrees there is a much larger "sweet spot" on a metal bat. Larger "sweet spot" means hotter shots. What more facts need to be provided? I am still having a hard time with some of the posts looking for proven scientific evidence. All the evidence you need is provided in my first 2 sentences.

From an article dated 1/4/10:

" Dr. Ira Casson, a symbol of the N.F.L.’s reluctance to recognize mounting evidence linking professional football and dementia before his resignation as co-chairman of a league committee on brain injuries, continued to deny the existence of any such relationship while testifying before a House Judiciary Committee hearing Monday.

“My position is that there is not enough valid, reliable or objective scientific evidence at present to determine whether or not repeat head impacts in professional football result in long-term brain damage,” Casson said in a written statement before his appearance."

Seem pretty similar in content to my reading.

quote:

Metal creates a high "risk" than wood.

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. At some point, that "risk" either has to show up in raw data or it is simply a bogus assessment, wouldn't you agree?

How long have metal bats been in use? If that "risk" truly were real, the numbers would bear them out and that isn't the case. THIS is the problem I personally have with this being addressed as a safety issue. The actual facts simply don't support that assessment.

Maple bats were brought into the picture from a safety perspective and was met with silence. Was that because they are made of wood and ultimately, that is what this discussion is really about?
Getting back to wood? Again, I have no problem moving the sport entirely back to wood but don't create an issue that doesn't exist in order to meet that goal.

Not a single person (unless I missed it) has said a word about the two common factors involved with this discussion. The ball and the human head. No one willing to step up and ask for a mandate to have pitchers wear helmets? Not a single person willing to step up and mandate that the ball be made softer which would mean no matter what device was used to smack it out in the field, if it happen to hit someone in the head the ball wouldn't do the damage it would do whether hit off metal or wood?

Sorry if I get the feeling the safety argument is less than disingenuous but that is what it appears based specifically on the facts. Several factual studies have finally been linked into this thread and not one of them indicates that based on the actual facts, metal bats have been any more dangerous that wood. In fact, the only one that showed there may be more bumps and bruises also indicated the more serious injuries to pitchers occurred with wood.


Flood insurance. You live in a flood plain and you are forced to purchase flood insurance. Why? The risk of a flood. The risk based on facts that your land has flooded many times in the past. They have actual data to back up that risk.

Young inexperienced drivers insurance rates are higher than established drivers. Why? The risk. Someone didn't make that up. They have facts that show the risk is real, not perceived. Young inexperienced drivers have more accidents and that is based on the facts that have been documented.

Thirty years metal bats have been in use and those same facts don't exist to prove the risk you speak about. If they did, metal would have been gone a long time ago, especially in the litigious society we live in.
And please for those reading this, don't think this means that I am some metal bat enthusiast who owns stock in DeMarini. I am not advocating or promoting metal bats. In fact, I would love to see the sport move back to wood and my son loves swinging wood as well. I am simply saying the data doesn't exist that says metal bats are any more dangerous than wood.

I didn't exactly think that way before this thread but if someone can show actual facts that show metal bats are indeed more dangerous than wood, I am listening.

quote:

Originally posted by birdman14:
Everybody agrees there is a much larger "sweet spot" on a metal bat. Larger "sweet spot" means hotter shots. What more facts need to be provided? I am still having a hard time with some of the posts looking for proven scientific evidence. All the evidence you need is provided in my first 2 sentences.

Another factor that needs to be discussed along with velocity is the increased number of these "hot shots" put in play using high tech bats. All athletic activities have a certain degree of risk involved which is understood and accepted by the participants and when discussing baseball, pitchers being hit by line drives is one of these understood risks. Nobody likes them but they are a part of the game. The problem is that more of these hazardous line drives are being put in play using high tech bats. It seems to me that we are not trying to eliminate the risk but simply to bring it back to a realistic level.

1baseballdad - your opinions are respected here. I am the one that has attempted to research the issue and it appears that Mueller is considered an authority on the issue. His data does not seem to support the increased risk argument.

I started this thread because it seems helmets are unacceptable to people. The consensus from the other thread was go back to wood but not helmet the pitcher. If you read the article I just posted a above, there was a man who was advocating helmets for pitchers.

Just because the injury data doesn't show that there is more risk of injury does not mean that there is not more risk as infielddad has pointed out. For example, the studies will not show near misses in the data. One piece of data, although not as scientific is anecdotal evidence. If the majority of people who watch games are under the impression that the ball jumps faster off of metal, then that is at least one form of evidence that suggests something ought to be done about it. I appreciate the complexities of the arguments however - on both sides.

According to Dr Andrews there are an average of 10 football players a year who are paralyzed. Should we ban football?
Dr Mueller conducts many studies and his point is simply there are so few catastrophic injuries as a result of using metal, it doesn't make sense to ban metal. BB is an inherently dangerous sport.
The Montana case was a failure to warn. Since then they warn that metal has a higher exit speed and have taken steps to reduce the exit speeds.
Not that some of you care.

quote:

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?

I am repeating my prior post to ask a question I already know the answer to.

Why is the players metal bat Home Run proficiency much greater than wood?

BALL SPEED OFF THE BAT

quote:

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?

And while I am at it, quite frankly Coach May, I didn't appreciate the way this was framed. I have read your posts here for over a year and by far you have given some of the best advice concerning baseball and non baseball related items I have every seen. I was disappointed with this response to say the least and it has been bothering me.

Let me turn it back to you.

What would you say to the many many moms and dads and families of those killed over the years by balls batted off wooden bats?

quote:

Why is the players metal bat Home Run proficiency much greater than wood?

I have been thinking about that question. What if we are not talking about bat exit speeds here. What if there is merely a difference in how the bat feels to the player. In other words, when they leave their college teams to go play in the summer leagues the drop-offs are due to differences in how the bat swings versus how hard a given bat will launch a baseball. I am not saying I believe that but I have wondered about it. Also, players have to learn how to adjust. College hitters crowd the plate and face no penalty for that. When you crowd the plate in the summer time, your bat gets sawed in half.

I also wonder that if hitters were only trained with wood their whole lives, if we would not in fact see more batting practice homeruns for example. I think of little guys like Yogi Berra who had no problem hitting home runs. I saw Josh Hamilton hitting 500 footer after 500 hundred footer a few years ago during the hr derby and he does not seem to be an extra-ordinarily big guy.

There are lots of things to consider.

"Several studies?
There really is only one recent assessment by Mueller and included in his information is the following:
"The distribution of schools contributing data by division was 37% from Division 1 (annual average
of 18 schools)"
Only 18 Division 1 schools, on average, participated in the NCAA information each year.
That study is comparing apples and oranges in terms of hitters and still finds more injuries with metal.
As rz1 pointed out earlier, Summer Wood bat leagues are made up of the best players and hitters from college baseball.
Of the vast majority of top hitters in college baseball included in the study, there were 18 schools out of over 300 DI baseball programs.
So, we have one group, the Summer Leagues, with the best hitters and more serious injuries. We have only 18 DI programs, with more injuries but they are less serious.
Simple analysis would tell us that the Summer league stats are more likely to have captured all injuries.
In contrast, it is quite unlikely the NCAA information captured anywhere near all injuries or the seriousness of the injuries for those teams and players having the best hitters(the ones likely playing in Summer wood bat leagues), using metal bats.

The trampoline effect is understood and discussed previously in the thread. BESR was an attempt to neutralize that. Now there is BBCOR.

Lets assume that BBCOR makes aluminum performance the same as wood as far as the trampoline effect. Are there other variables affecting performance? Are we down to that one argument that there is a bigger sweet spot on metal bats and thus higher incidence of hard shots and therefore higher risk risk of injury? I think the swing performance differences need to be analyzed carefully as well. It is possible using modern alloying technologies to get the hardness/performance of the materials to match that of wood.

quote:

His travel team buys bats for the players?

Yes. But most of the players have their own. They will try different bats for a different feel. The great thing about wood bats is if you change your mind on the feel you're not married to a $300 metal bat. Later in the year if a player tires he can switch to a smaller lighter bat.

quote:

Knock on wood, but he didn't break one all last summer or fall.

The only bat my son broke all year was a teammate's $80 bat. He was called on to pinch hit at the last second. He said just toss him a bat when the person couldn't figure out which one was his.

quote:

Originally posted by birdman14:
Everybody agrees there is a much larger "sweet spot" on a metal bat. Larger "sweet spot" means hotter shots. What more facts need to be provided? I am still having a hard time with some of the posts looking for proven scientific evidence. All the evidence you need is provided in my first 2 sentences.

But are the bats statistically causing more injuries? That's the issue when selling moving away from metal.

It could very well be that after looking at all the considerations, that the best thing to do is to have pitchers wear a helmet.

That helmet would need to be of the new, larger but lighter, models being shipped to MILB (begins this year I think). The helmet would need to be of the "ear-flap" variety for temporal protection.

Pitchers, I'm sure, wouldn't be too crazy about the idea but neither were players when it was mandated that baserunners wear helmets on the base paths.

My son, a Junior High School hitter last year, hit a D1 signee pitcher in the head last season with a "come backer" that bounced of the top of his head into the 3rd base dugout! After having seen it live, if my son were a pitcher I'd be a huge proponent for some kind of change to protect the pitcher as we do the hitter. Additionally, if he had been struck by lightning (bigger chance) I probably wouldn't let him play in the rain. Can't change the ball without altering the game, no one is willing to take metal/composite bats away, that leaves only protecting the pitcher with a helmet. After all, it is the approach taken to protect the old noggin in every other "contact" situation I can think of.

quote:

My son, a Junior High School hitter last year, hit a D1 signee pitcher in the head last season with a "come backer" that bounced of the top of his head into the 3rd base dugout! After having seen it live, if my son were a pitcher I'd be a huge proponent for some kind of change to protect the pitcher as we do the hitter.

My son took a line drive to the head last year that rolled to the dugout. He was out for a few seconds. I felt much better when he started rolling around. I was relieved when he walked off the field. I accept it as part of the risk of being a pitcher. The situation occurred with wood.

Had he been maimed with a metal bat I might feel differently. What if he had been maimed with a wood bat? Helmet? Soften the core of the ball? Or deal with it as a fluke? He's the only pitcher I've even seen live take one to the head. I've seen plenty of close calls.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
The trampoline effect is understood and discussed previously in the thread. BESR was an attempt to neutralize that. Now there is BBCOR.

Lets assume that BBCOR makes aluminum performance the same as wood as far as the trampoline effect. Are there other variables affecting performance? Are we down to that one argument that there is a bigger sweet spot on metal bats and thus higher incidence of hard shots and therefore higher risk risk of injury? I think the swing performance differences need to be analyzed carefully as well. It is possible using modern alloying technologies to get the hardness/performance of the materials to match that of wood.

Huh?
No, BBCOR does not equalize the trampoline effect between wood and metal. Wood has no trampoline effect. Metal (hollow) bats do, and it is a substantial effect. In fact, without the trampoline effect metal bats, even with the increased bat speed caused by the lower moment of inertia, would provide less batted ball speed than wood bats. The trampoline effect allows metal bats to match the batted ball speed of wood bats--under the particular conditions of the test. It also allows a strong hitter to generate batted ball speeds which are higher using metal than he can with wood.

There has been quite a few posts pointing out that metal bats allow a given hitter to make higher bat speed, because the MOI is lower, and then erroneously conclude that the the higher bat speed makes a higher batted ball speed. In fact there have been several experimental studies which show that batted ball speed decreases as the MOI goes down. The first was simply Roger Maris using 5 bats, all heavier than the model he used to break the HR record. He could hit the ball longer distances with heavier bats. Of course Maris wasn't a typical hitter, and we might imagine that he could handle a heavier bat, while lesser players can't. That notion is countered by more recent studies, using multiple radar guns, which examined this relationship for women's softball (lower bat speed than baseball players), and for men's soft pitch (much higher bat speed than baseball players). It is well established that higher MOI means faster batted ball speed. Metal bats need the trampoline effect to compensate for the lower moment of inertia.

As I have posted earlier, BBCOR is better than BESR. But hitters who are capable of swinging wood bats at speeds higher than the test speeds, will get a disproportionate trampoline effect with a metal bat. Those guys really do achieve higher batted ball speed with a metal bat than with a wood bat, and will continue to do so even with BBCOR certified bats.

Forget controlled tests and all this jargon.

The D1 home run leader so far has averaged a metal bat home run every 10 at bats and one home run with wood every 35 at bats.

EXPLAIN THAT

quote:

Originally posted by golfball:
[QUOTE] Knock on wood, but he didn't break one all last summer or fall.

The bat won't break unless it's hit where the break usually occurs, when the pitcher jams him inside.
There aren't too many young pitchers who do that, in fact there aren't too many milb/MLB pitchers who do that either. So I wouldn't worry about much replacement when players are young.

I was thinking back to when son was young, that was many many years ago, I can remember only one occassion when a pitcher got seriously hurt up until the time he left college, more hitters with broken hands and a few broken jaws (ball got the hitter in the face even with the helmet on), but I can't remember anything other than a 10-11 year old pitcher getting hit in the face.
Obviously it's because the bats have changed, we didn't have those fancy bats back then, you went to Kmart or Sports Authority and bought a metal bat. And oh yeah, the kids did just as well as they do today. I have no problem with teh govt stepping in to regulate bats used by young players (where most of the injuries occur), young players are not learned enough, responsive enough to protect themselves. Some things happen as the pitcher gets older, but I do belive it is more of a fluke than a regular occurance and can happen with wood as well. We sat with friends at a HS game a while back whose son got hit badly in a game at the cape, smashed his jaw. He was a hitter.

The desire for the hitter to hit farther and with more power has changed since son played youth sports, the parents buying 3-400 dollar bats has also changed all of that, the bat manufacturers gave them what they wanted. Don't blame them. All the parent had to do was say NO thanks.

I say blame the people (and most of us have been guilty in one way or another) who buy those bats for their kids and want their kids to hit harder, farther.

quote:

Originally posted by 30bombs:
Forget controlled tests and all this jargon.
The D1 home run leader so far has averaged a metal bat home run every 10 at bats and one home run with wood every 35 at bats.
EXPLAIN THAT

Is that directed at me? If so, which part of
"Those guys really do achieve higher batted ball speed with a metal bat than with a wood bat.."
didn't you understand? Or perhaps didn't bother to read?

3FG - I may have mixed up my terms but it seems to me that the ratings are an attempt to equalize performance between wood and metal. If they find some way to make the materials equal (performance wise) which is theoretically possible, then some of the anti-metal arguments become moot. If you are arguing that some characteristic of metal bats is allowing balls to be hit harder, then that is the whole reason I started this thread - to increase safety in the sport by going back to wood. My other thread for increasing safety (helmets) did not seem to go over all that well with our audience.

It's 2010. In this society there's got to be somebody to blame; somebody to sue.

baseball regie

It is thinking like yours that typifies what is wrong with this country today

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
If they find some way to make the materials equal (performance wise) which is theoretically possible, then some of the anti-metal arguments become moot.

I don't believe it is practically possible. To get a complete match in performance, it is necessary to have the same weight, MOI, and trampoline effect for a given length of bat. Instead, the current regulations (and I think any other practical regulation) ensure that the performance matches for just one bat and pitch speed.

I'm not going to discuss my reasons here, but I speculate that significantly reducing head injuries to pitchers will require some kind of head protection. I believe (but won't try to explain) that pitchers get hit at about the same rate for either wood or metal bats, although the metal bat has the potential to cause slightly more damage.

On the other hand, I think that corner infielders are more likely to be hit from a metal bat.

Just got an e-mail from one of my umpiring associations. The MCAL (league where Gunnar's Marin Catholic team plays) has just voted to ban metal bats for remainder of season. Interesting side note: It is anticipated that in non-league games (MCAL team will use wood, but other team may not) it is anticipated that some pitchers may opt to wear helmets.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
baseball regie

It is thinking like yours that typifies what is wrong with this country today

I figured most people would have gotten the sarcasm. I can't figure out how to use one of those little faces but for you and anyone else, I was being sarcastic. But, for the record tr, I haven't the highest regard for your opinions either.

USE WOOD.

First of all I have always been a person that believed that the game was designed to be played with wood and its a much better game when played with wood. I understand the reason I feel this way is because I never played the game with metal bats. They were introduced at the HS level right after I graduated from HS. I grew up with wood , played with wood and believe it is the way the game is supposed to be played.

As a coach I have always taught the principles of the game based on wood. Keep a single a single , a double and double and a triple a triple. Never give up a bag. Be sound in the cut game. Be sound in your bunt defense and offense. Defend the first and third. Hold runners. Understand the importance of taking a bag. Understand the importance of knowing how to run the bases. Throw strikes , force the other team to earn their base. Make the routine play on a routine basis. Understand that a ground ball to the right side with a runner on 2b with no outs is a great ab even if you are thrown out at first. The list goes on and on.

With the introduction of the metal bats also came the introduction of metal bat baseball. Do not give up an out to move a runner. Hooking around an outside fastball is ok because with a metal bat you can still hammer it to the gap. Without taking up so much time here basically it changed the game. It changed the way it was played, coached and taught. Long swings , loopy swings , poor decisions at the plate many times end up in success with a metal bat. Pitchers are punished for making a great pitch. Pitchers have to throw way more pitches. Pitchers see hitters on the plate and still work away knowing that the metal bat can still beat them if they go inside. And even if they foul it off that bat will survive. With wood you are punished for a poor swing and approach. With metal many times you are rewarded anyway.

I understand for those that have never played with wood , coached with wood , my post is old school and out of date. I understand that many see metal bats as just the way it is and always has been for them. I believe that wood bats bring out the best in the game. I believe they reward those that play the game properly and punish those that do not.

So for me its always been about returning the game to its roots. And teaching kids the way it was designed to be played.

The second reason I do not like metal bats is I believe they bring an added danger to the participants. When hitters are swinging wood they learn that hooking arond an outside pitch will result in failure almost all the time. And the fact is most wood bats are broken when hitters try to pull and outside pitch. Yes some are broken when hitters get sawed off on the inside and cant get the barrell on the ball. With metal many times hitters hook around an outside pitch and they end up driving it back up the middle with authority. When I am throwing bp and I throw a ton of it this is what I see.

Pitch inside hammered foul or to left field. Pitch down the middle hammered to left field or lcf. Pitch outer half back up the middle or lcf. Pitches away hooked around back up the middle or rcf.

Hitters with wood will learn sooner or later that they have to hit the baseball where it is pitched in order to have success. They will learn to square it up or they will not have success. They will learn to shorten their swing or they will not have success.

Metal bats to me and this is just one guys opinion have done more to hinder the development of players than any other thing I have ever seen. Not only as hitters but also to pitchers and the way the players actually learn to play the game. Remember many youth coaches and hs coaches are products of metal bat baseball today.

And they also happen to add more danger to the game that already is dangerous enough.

Youth players in my day never swung a metal bat and no one had a problem with it. I understand that kids will have more success with a metal bat. But going 1-4 with wood and learning what a quality at bat is and how to actually hit for me is more fun than going 4-4 cheating the game and not learning a darn thing.

Sorry for the long post. I understand that many will disagree with me. And I understand that many see metal bats as a sign of the times and times have changed. But some changes are not good. jmo

Good stuff Coach.