Start Using Wood Now

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:

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?

You must be young enough to not know baseball wasn't invented for enhanced bat performance. Or you work for Easton?

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

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.

Please correct me if I'm wrong: The trainer fills out the NCAA Injury Surevellance System reports. The trainer gets his paychecks from the university, which has a contract with a sporting goods company--Nike, Wilson, Easton, etc.-- which typically provides equipment for all sports, including baseball. The trainer is influenced by the head coach, who receives significant cash from the bat companies.

Dr. Mueller's comparative "study" of wood bat and metal bat games--which found that metal was riskier-- was funded by $210,166 from the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association.

http://www.unc.edu/sportmedlab...marshall_stephen.pdf

"29. Use of Metal Bats and Risk of Innjury to the Pitcher from Batted Balls in Baseball Games. Mueller FO (PI), Marshall SW (co-PI). Agency: Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association. 4/1/05-3/31/08. $210,166."

Until you know who paid for it, the word "study" should always be in quotation marks.

Dr. Mueller testified against adopting wood bats in Massachusetts. His expenses were paid for the by the SGMA.


"National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injuries executive Fred Mueller said there is no way to tell the safety difference between a metal and wooden bat.

'The problem is you can't find a comparable group of Little Leaguers,' Mueller, a professor at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said during the hearing.

A reporter asked Mueller if he was paid to present his testimony and Mueller said he was invited by Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association which only paid for his expenses."
http://www.wickedlocal.com/wey...h/archive/x700302409

quote:

Originally posted by baseballregie:

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.

Maybe TR was referring to your sarcastic thinking.



....Nah!

RJM,

I agree that efforts for wood bats should emphasize tradition, etc., rather than safety.

Our summer league switched to wood by promoting:

Tradition
Real baseball
The way it's supposed to be played
Callused hands with pine tar
Earn it
Machismo

When I hear the word safety, I think: bubblewrap, nanny state, you name it.

quote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong: The (athletic) trainer fills out the NCAA Injury Surevellance System reports. The (athletic) trainer gets his paychecks from the university, which has a contract with a sporting goods company--Nike, Wilson, Easton, etc.-- which typically provides equipment for all sports, including baseball. The (athletic) trainer is influenced by the head coach, who receives significant cash from the bat companies.

Sure, love to correct you. The ATHLETIC TRAINER is in fact normally hired and paid by the university, but the ATHLETIC TRAINER SHOULD NOT be influenced by the head coach. The ATHLETIC TRAINER is under the supervision of a team physician; not a clueless coach.

I'd also be curious to see how many teams actually have contracts with various companies that are lucrative enough for a coach to attempt to force influence in things that are unrelated to his job. Sports Medicine is not the coach's job. Reporting injuries through the voluntary NCAA Injury Survelliance System is not the responsibility of the coach.

quote:

Callused hands with pine tar

My son played wood bat all last summer. He uses wood for BP in high school. One of his less informed high school teammates asked him why he uses a wood bat in BP, what's that cr@p on the bat, and why don't you wear batting gloves?

quote:

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.

Who is going to swing metal against a team that is banned from using metal bats? Especially given the circumstance leading to the MCAL's decision? I would like to think that the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play will prevail.

Great post Coach May. Son played in a wood bat league last summer. It was a great experience.

I have not read all the posts, however as an ex softball player years ago and who started using the double walls in 1995, I believe when Demarini first came out, I can say that there are plenty of studies with data in the files of ASA and USSSA the top orgs for softball.

Much of the technology for baseball came from softball bats. In fact composites were first used in softball as well which were terrible performers . In 1999 composites started to get figured out and performance improved. They became bat of choice because they were considered single wall and many leagues banned double walls so these composites were legal. Many of the hi tech bats have been banned. In fact ASA only allows certain bats (which the manufacturers hate). Heck in 1993 titanium bats were introduced by Easton and Worth , you want to talk performance enhanced and dangerous,these were and we were lucky no one died from these that I know of. I never heard of titanium in baseball I guess the makers felt there would be way to much liability if kids got a hold of them.

Many types of Composites were banned from softball real quick. In fact the orgs even changed the balls to lower compression and restricted flight. Still did not help much.

I only know that now that shaving and rolling bats have been figured out well people will still find a way to "juice em if they are not wood".

As for metal its all in the alloy. Get rid of the aircraft aluminum such as 7050 alloy and up and get back to the old stuff 6061 or 7046 and the performance will go down even if you shave the bats. Control the alloy, but then the makers will not be able to develop new widgets and they know it. Oh and the cost would go way down because the metal is way cheaper per pound than the high grade stuff. So if you want a metal bat that will not break and not perform to well just go to the old alloys, and we will save money too.

Now, if someone gets injured and they grab the bat it would be very easy to test it to prove it was a. legal alloy or b. illegal alloy. Hence easier to get sued or held responsible in a court of law.

sorry I got to ramble to long.

This thread just keeps going round and round.

To try and net it out...

Fact: Baseball started with wood and that is its heritage. No one disputes that. You can’t. It gets fluffy after that as to whether wood should now be used exclusively in order to preserve the integrity of the game but based on the actual numbers produced (hits, HR's slugging %, etc) it's hard to argue that metal hasn't impugned the integrity of the game. Seems most line up with going to all wood based on the increased performance of metal bats vs. wood. Include me in that list.

Fact: Study after study after study proves that metal bats do indeed perform better than wood, bolstering the argument above. There is no doubt that metal in the hands of a lesser skilled hitter can and many times does produce the same or even better results as a more capable and skilled hitter using wood.

Fact: Hitting numbers on the field correlate directly to those studies I mentioned above.

Fact: Not a single piece of data exists that shows a correlation between increased bat performance and an increase in serious injuries.

Fact: The data that does exist shows that there has NOT been an increase in serious injuries due to the use of metal.

Fact: Thank goodness this is a fact but the rate of severe injury or death in baseball is miniscule. Even lower is the rate of severe injury or death by a batted ball. Again, thank goodness that it is a rarity.

Fact: Those attempting to approach this issue as a safety concern are perfectly willing to use the hitting stats to prove their point (as they should) but completely unwilling to accept that there are no statistics to make the correlation that the increased performance also increases serious injuries. IE, the serious injury rate has not increased. To take it further, they are perfectly willing to completely discount any studies that directly contradicts their anecdotal opinions. I find that odd.

This isn't a safety issue, it's an integrity issue. Period. If it were about safety, those who are the most passionate about the safety aspect would be just as passionate, even more so, with making the ball softer and mandating pitchers wear helmets whether they want to wear them or not. After all, there have been many deaths and injuries over the years and years of baseball by balls coming off wood bats. Banning metal bats will not save one life of anyone killed by a ball coming off a wood bat.

quote:

Fact: Those attempting to approach this issue as a safety concern are perfectly willing to use the hitting stats to prove their point (as they should) but completely unwilling to accept that there are no statistics to make the correlation that the increased performance also increases serious injuries. IE, the serious injury rate has not increased. To take it further, they are perfectly willing to completely discount any studies that directly contradicts their anecdotal opinions. I find that odd

Fact: During all the years the NFL was denying any association between brain injury and repeated concussions because there were "no statistics" to make the correlation, players were sustaining brain injury due to repeated concussions.
Safety is minimizing the "risk" of injury, not ignoring there is a "risk" because you don't have enough sound data.
Fact: Evidence exists that balls hit with metal reach a pitcher faster than the pitcher can react.
The Mueller study proves absolutely nothing. It now appears he was funded by the bat manufacturers. His effort to compare the results of 18 DI programs with the results of Wood Bat leagues/top college hitters is science at its worst.
One of the great aspects of our country is the ability to have give and take and see positions evolve and change.
Now that former NFL players brains have been sliced and analyzed, the NFL has changed their long held position on concussions and replaced their medical adviser on the issue. I understand some need to see the actual proof of gruesome injury to acknowledge the risk association like the NFL did.
I am not one of them. I believe higher velocity off a bat creates a risk of injury and don't feel I need to see the bodies.
What is offensive though is the Mueller study and efforts to suggest it says anything reliable on the "risk" when it is so obviously flawed and incomplete in its sampling of the quality of the hitters with the bat in their hands.

quote:

I believe higher velocity off a bat creates a risk of injury and don't feel I need to see the bodies.

quote:

The Mueller study proves absolutely nothing. It now appears he was funded by the bat manufacturers.

Do you honestly believe in this day and age of "sue everybody and sue often" that if there was a direct correlation existing between increased performance and increased injury that every single metal bat manufacture wouldn't be completely out of business by now?

Come on. This is pure common sense. The data doesn't exist because it isn't happening.

Why do you keep going back to Dr Mueller? There have been several studies done and linked to in this thread that indicate there is no correlation between metal bats and increased injury.



"Funding was provided by the
NFHS Foundation."

So what did they have to gain...Is the NFHS in the tank for the bat manufactures as well?

NEWS RELEASE
Games with Nonwood
Bats Produce More Hits
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Bob Gardner
INDIANAPOLIS, IN (September 28, 2007) — In a comparative study of Illinois high school baseball teams using wood bats and nonwood
bats during the same season, games with nonwood bats lasted longer and produced more hits than those with wood bats, but researchers at Illinois State University found that there was no statistically significant difference in injuries.

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.

quote:

I am not one of them. I believe higher velocity off a bat creates a risk of injury and don't feel I need to see the bodies.

By the way, for you and others wishing to use anecdotal evidence to back your opinion that metal is more dangerous, that anecdotal evidence goes both ways. That is the problem with anecdotal evidence when you try to use it to prove something.

________________________

But years of experience paint a different picture for coaches like Fenton head skipper Sam Gallucci.


“This is my 13th year of high school coaching and my 24th year overall,” said Fenton head coach Sam Gallucci. “Out of all the hundreds and hundreds of games, I have not seen one pitcher injured by a ball off an aluminum bat.

“I would rather stick with aluminum bats. I think there is more danger of wooden bats breaking and flying into players or fans. Kids have good reaction skills and they can react to a ball off an aluminum bat.”


York head coach Phil Bodine has been around the game at many different levels, from his playing days to working with high school players and also with USA baseball. As long as the safety of the players is not at further risk, he believes there is no choice but to stay with aluminum.

“When you are talking about safety, that is the first and foremost thing,” Bodine said. “But there is not a huge difference in exit speeds of the different bats. Studies have proved that.


“I don’t think there is a large enough difference to validate switching over and doing that. College is using aluminum bats and they are not switching.”


“I’d like to stay with aluminum,” Hinsdale South head coach Kraig Conyer said. “Studies are starting to show that there is no significant change in the number of injuries when you go to wood bats.”



____________

It's a great article that I suggest everyone read. Pretty much the exact same things being said here. In the end, it's about the integrity of the game, not safety.

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/...d/sports/x1564572659

I am pretty old school, not into these studies, but the simple fact that you see more injuries from metal bats NOW then years ago, is proof that it's the bat, IMO.
From a conversation, I don't think college coaches would mind that they use wood, but the transition has to begin earlier, as most coaches don't have time to teach hitting differently with wood. This may not occur with the top hitters but most players in general, but then there might be a larger seperation in college from the programs that have the top players in the country and certainly will benefit pitchers in their game.

quote:

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (September 28, 2007) — In a comparative study of Illinois high school baseball teams using wood bats and nonwood

This study was not very long. I'm thinking it lasted a little over a month.

quote:

I am pretty old school, not into these studies, but the simple fact that you see more injuries from metal bats NOW then years ago, is proof that it's the bat, IMO.

Can you provide ANYTHING that backs up that statement?

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
With the introduction of the metal bats also came the introduction of metal bat baseball.

With a touch of sarcasm, maybe the wood bat folks should break away, take back the game the way it should be played and let the metal bat advocates carry on with their sport. It is much similar to slowpitch/fastpitch softball. The slow pitch games are very similar with the exception of one very important detail.

Whats the problem with having a choice?

This is where I'm afraid the "wood bat only" people may end up playing with the quality players but small rosters, and "metal bat baseball" will become a game for the masses of players who have passion for the game but few tools.

The members of this site know where they will be playing but what about all those we have left behind over the years?

Is it our place to tell them how they have to play the game.

Everything we do in life has some danger involved. Are we standing behind the safety issue to amplify our passion to play the game the way we feel it should be played?

quote:

This study was not very long. I'm thinking it lasted a little over a month.

I can't understand why this isn't great news for everyone with a kid playing the sport.

_____

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.

The comparative research of teams using both kinds of bats during the season indicated an average of
8.77 hits per game in games with nonwood bats compared to 6.50 hits per game in games with wood bats. In addition, nonwood
bat games lasted 12.35 minutes longer (2:05 compared to 1:53). Although there were also more extrabase hits, atbats and runs scored in nonwood bat games, the lengthofgame and total hits categories were,according to Laudner, the only ones with statistically significant differences.

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. “After an extensive search for wood vs. nonwood
bat usage, we concluded that there was no research available to answer our questions,” said Anthony Holman, assistant executive director of the IHSA. “So, we decided to commission our own study using high school teams and players to obtain some concrete data.

I scrolled back through this entire thread.
If we leave out the Mueller study, which actually did find increased numbers of injury with metal even when measuring the best college hitters with wood and a complete cross section of hitters with metal(the largest percentage being DIII level teams) I found a total of 2, yes 2 articles. You provided both of them.
We must have a different view of several.
As relates to the lawsuit issue, Cigarette companies are making billions despite the known risk of cancer and other health conditions.
Where I think we have a significant difference is you want to take the position there is no risk because there are not studies of the bodies.
I take the view there is an increase in risk that has yet to be to be quantified on whether it is small or large as contrasted with wood. Both have some risk.
Mueller sure didn't try and explain why there were more injuries, even in his flawed data. Quite clearly more pitchers were hit and injured with batted balls off metal bats in his study.
As 3FG points out much better than I, better and stronger hitters are going to generate even higher differences in exit speed with metal vs wood.
More injuries measured when you include only 18 DI teams combined with the likely increase in exit speeds across the better and stronger hitters in DI baseball correlates with increased risk in my view.
How much that risk increases isn't quantified because it has not been studied and isn't being studied.

quote:

Where I think we have a significant difference is you want to take the position there is no risk because there are not studies of the bodies.

I never said there isn't risk. I said the risk isn't greater with metal vs wood. I then found what little exists to use as evidence. This thread actually made me sit down and do some research because like most who have posted, my perception was the same as yours.

The risk is there with both wood and metal. If the risk was higher with metal, that would equate to higher numbers of severe injuries in metal vs wood. Statistically, it would have to if it were true.

When I see people talking about something as fact and then they have nothing to back it up, all sorts of red flags go up for me. Like I said, before this discussion, I thought the same thing as it pertains to metal vs wood. Never really thought about it enough to dig into it until this thread, quite honestly so I didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I am also still very open to any new studies that show metal is more dangerous than wood. I have no dog in this fight one way or the other, except that my son plays the game.

Back to my first post... I think we were heading to that direction (metal being more dangerous) with how crazy the latest bats are getting but I also believe the new BBCOR standards will nip that in the bud...at least until the manufactures learn how to play in the new gray area's.

quote:

I can't understand why this isn't great news for everyone with a kid playing the sport.

32 subjects won't get you published. Like I said, this study was too short to conclusively tell us ANYTHING. But don't worry, this study is worth gold. Meanwhile other studies (the one using the NCAA ISS) is worth nothing since it's not very detailed. Makes sense to me..

quote:

32 subjects won't get you published

It was 412 games played by the 32 teams and they had 9144 at bats.

Again, the great news is that these types of injuries are very rare, no matter what bat is used and statistically indistinguishable between the two. I call that great news.

Is there a similar study or even one more in depth that you can point to that says otherwise?

"When I see people talking about something as fact and then they have nothing to back it up, all sorts of red flags go up for me."

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on a number of aspects here.
The fundamental disagreement is methodology.
Personally, I think you know far more about this issue than the several disclaimers you have made suggest. But I admit that is my impression and supposition from reading your posts sequentially.
As I posted before, the NFL required hard data. At every step of the way, they took the exact same position you have articulated. Their long term and adamant stand was that without proof of demonstrable injuries, there was no acceptance of risk of causation.Well, it looks like they got it last year. In the interim, many, many players have sustained repeated concussions.
As I posted before, Mueller does support that more injuries occurred with metal even in the hands of those hitters who would not be considered the best hitters, as contrasted with those who were studied in summer leagues.
To dismiss the injuries as bumps and bruises is skillful but they did cause loss of playing time.
To say there is no proof when truly there are not sufficient studies is really quite true. I don't have a problem with you taking that position.
Where I disagree is with your view that everyone should be so reassured from nothing. Where I feel it is important to post is the concept that everything is fine unless it is proven not to be.
Manufacturers brought metal bats into baseball.
The burden should be upon them to prove their safety. The burden should not be on the users and those who love the game to prove they are unsafe
Looked at this way, where are the studies commissioned by those who generate hundreds of millions from metal bats that prove they are safe and present no increased risk?
I don't think they exist, do they?

quote:

Personally, I think you know far more about this issue than the several disclaimers you have made suggest

Honestly, I am just an ordinary schmuck with a son playing ball.

I will be the first to admit I was pretty ignorant about this subject when the thread first popped up. I have been somewhat interested in the subject since I knew the standards were changing and that went back to last year when the NCAA decided to ban composites. At that time, I had no idea what rolling a bat was or what it meant and then I find out people go so far as to shave their metal bats in order to make them hotter. It was a world I didn't know existed quite frankly. I wasn't into the mens softball scene.

I am about as far from an expert in any of this as anyone could be but at the same time, I wanted to better understand the dynamics. Heck, one of my first posts in the thread pretty much sums up my own ignorance when I made my comment about "30 oz's being 30 oz's". I had no clue what MOI was, specifics behind BESR or any of the other technical details but I did know about swing weight and how it can alter a swing, end loaded bats vs balanced bats and BESR was supposed to make metal perform like wood, etc. I just didn't understand they dynamics behind it, nor did I care really. I absolutely understood swinging wood and swinging metal are two different games. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out and my wife will be the first to step up to the plate and testify that yes, I am no genius.

I am a common sense guy and as I said, before this thread, common sense told me that metal would be more dangerous than wood based on the surface arguments. Sounded pretty logical to me. Then I dug into it a little and wondered why in the heck there was nothing to substantiate that if it was indeed the case. Then the flags really went up for me when people want to go so far as to ban a bat "for safety reasons", then have zero data to back it up, yet be perfectly fine with ignoring safety issues with Maple bats or ignore the fact that over the years, many people have been tragically killed or seriously injured by a ball coming off a wood bat. If it's about safety, why not pick something that both wood bats and metal bats have in common? The ball and the body, specifically the head. If it was really about safety, those are the only two areas that can ensure you reduce the risk of the types of injuries we have been talking about yet I see no petitions to mandate helmets or lawsuits against ball manufactures. Where was the outcry for those in this thread?

That is why I came to my own conclusion that this is more knee jerk and political than actually being about safety.

Sorry for rambling but I felt like I needed to explain my stance.

quote:

lawsuits against ball manufactures. Where was the outcry for those in this thread?

If you check the site a number of months back, you can find a similar type thread on a metal bat head injury/death lawsuit in Montana where the jury found the manufacturer liable to the family to the tune of about $800,000.
In that case, as reported, the family offered un-controverted evidence that the velocity of the baseball to the pitcher's head was faster than the human ability of the pitcher to react.
The thread got a big bogged down on whether there were legal liabilities that flowed from that evidence. The evidence itself was not contradicted.
There a a number of similar lawsuits either pending or which have been decided against the manufacturers.
We should feel that one more lawsuit is very, very likely.
Finally, suggesting that I "made up" a "safety" issue to disguise a political or "knee jerk" reaction seems to be questioning either my intelligence or my honesty, or both.
Sorry to read that and sorry you see my posts in that way.

A baseball comes at you at 90 MPH or A baseball comes at you at 100 MPH. Which one do you stand a better chance of avoiding?

An average hitter may square up a wood bat baseball 1 out of 10 times. That same hitter can square up 5 batted ball out of 10 times with a metal bat.

Which bat provides the greater opporunity for hitting more comebackers?

Which bat can turn a sharp one hop ground ball to the pitcher into a faster hit line drive?

Why does a college home run leader average a home run every 10 at bats with metal, but with wood, only every 35 at bats.

More harder struck metal bat baseballs increase the number of opportunities for injury. This isn't about the number of documented injuries relating to metal bats. It is about minimizing the chances, the denominator in the equation.

quote:

In that case, as reported, the family offered un-controverted evidence that the velocity of the baseball to the pitcher's head was faster than the human ability of the pitcher to react.

quote:

More harder struck metal bat baseballs increase the number of opportunities for injury. This isn't about the number of documented injuries relating to metal bats. It is about minimizing the chances, the denominator in the equation.

Common sense tells you this theory is the truth.

Unfortunately (actually I should say fortunately), the facts don't prove the theory. Until you can prove a theory, it's just that...a theory. You can't just make a claim and then not have data to back it up. That's just the way it works.


"Could" "Potential" "Might"

After 30 + years of metal bats being used, the theory just hasn't panned out. As I said, I don't discount that it couldn't in the future if the technology isn't kept in check, I am just saying based on what we know today, it isn't the case.

Let me ask you this. If it is proven that people driving red cars get more speeding tickets, could it be that more sports cars are sold with the color red or does the color red actually make a car go faster? Why not just ban red cars and eliminate the risk associated with red cars. After all, driving faster increases the risk of an accident and by getting rid of red cars, you therefore eliminate that risk, right?

Another close call. Thankfully that's all it was.
Pitchers close call

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Another close call. Thankfully that's all it was.

If it would have been a wood bat that would have been a lazy line drive . Again, I am a wood fan but every time a line drive with metal comes up the "metal banners" use it as evidence that it is the killer of our youth. That ball was on the screws wood or metal

quote:

In January you posted the following in a thread about composite bats:

"I am just glad my son doesn't pitch! I could see pitchers wearing goalie facesmasks soon if things weren't slated to change in 2012."

Curious post you made at that time contrasted with your post here about everyone being reassured and that all is safe!
That comment about pitchers wearing "face masks" which you posted in January is haunting to me, really haunting.

Actually, it is exactly what I was saying in the rest of my post above.

"I am a common sense guy and as I said, before this thread, common sense told me that metal would be more dangerous than wood based on the surface arguments. Sounded pretty logical to me."

That is exactly why I said what I said then and what I am saying now.

As for the shaving and rolling, same idea. I knew nothing about it until something sparked my interest about the composite subject. I couldn't quite grasp why suddenly all the bats used at the NCAA tourney were so out of spec. I knew composite bats get hotter as they are used but it just didn't add up for me so I dove in trying to educate myself. That's just the way my brain ticks...well, when it ticks.

I have grown to understand sometimes I don't know what I don't know and it isn't a bad thing to keep learning. Just as I made an uneducated comment about 30 oz's being 30 oz's, I am also not too proud to say I got it wrong.

Again, if a new study comes out that finally does show what many are saying as it pertains to metal actually being more dangerous than wood, I will also say I was wrong. I just don't understand how people have been saying that for 30 years but have yet to produce results that back it up. A lot of people have "seen" the Lock Ness Monster. Does that make him real? I am sure it does to the people who have seen him.

Lastly, I wouldn't classify myself as anti government, rather smaller government. I am not too fond of politicians right now. I get my dander up when politicians seek to manipulate a tragedy so they can make a name for themselves by wading in and "saving the day" by banning something when they have zero evidence a product (metal) is more dangerous than one they leave alone (wood and the ball). That is what I think when I see politicians seize on the grief of a family who just experienced such a tragedy as was referenced in this thread. Manipulating someone's emotions at such a time purely for personal gain (politicians) is about as low as low gets.

The bat makes an easy target. The hard part is doing the research to confirm it.