wood v. metal - anecdotal evidence

It's very anecdotal considering one is a big strong professional athlete and the other two are amateurs. It's very anecdotal considering the ratio of metal to wood used in baseball. Metal is used from age seven through college with the exception of some summer leagues. Wood is used primarily by the select few who make it to professional baseball.

Goosegg - I understand the intention, but I think its not a good idea and won't convince anyone of changing their minds.

My son was hit in the face off a wood bat (summer CC league). One of the VP's from a major metal bat company told me they were using him as "anecdotal evidence" that there was no difference.

I was outraged and told them to stop. Anecdotal evidence is not a good idea.

Personally, I like the science of physics to explain the differences. Physics doesn't lie. Ban metal.

Information is information. What people choose to do with that information varies. I am just looking for hs and older info. (And not looking for "routine" injuries (e.g., Sam Solis, USD, 2009 off his hand).)

I am not trying to draw conclusions (e.g., who hits harder MLB or college). Just trying to tap into the wealth of collective wisdom and memory of a group of people who are truly focused on baseball.

How can you use 3 pitchers (one professional and two non)as anecdotal evidence?

quote:

Lets use the collective memories of the human minds here and list pitchers' who were severely injured by comebackers and whether those hits were made by metal or wood. While this is only anecdotal evidence, perhaps what we'll find a trend as yet not found by mainstream media.

quote:

How can you use 3 pitchers (one professional and two non)as anecdotal evidence?

He has only started the list and wants to gather a longer list...

quote:

Anecdotal evidence is not a good idea.

I agree 100%. All it does is stir up unnecessary emotions and doesn't really prove anything. It's almost a bit morbid as well, IMO.

quote:

I agree 100%. All it does is stir up unnecessary emotions and doesn't really prove anything. It's almost a bit morbid as well, IMO.

We agree on that. Good! But I don't agree on a whole lot you've posted on the other thread...but thats ok.

Look at the physics. It tells you all you need to know.

quote:

We agree on that. Good! But I don't agree on a whole lot you've posted on the other thread...but thats ok.

That is why I love this place. It's ok to disagree.

What confuses me is my son has said that in the last 4 years of wood MILB games he probably has seen more scary moments with bats shattering toward the bump/infield than the 15 years of near miss metal line drives.

At the same time he says there is a definite difference in exit speed.

What does that first hand data tell you. Maybe, that there is danger on the mound regardless.

Again, for the several that have responded, I don’t think, with respect, that you get what I am trying to find out.

There is a study which concluded that there is no evidence that no more injuries occur with metal when compared to wood bats. The study (which occurred several years ago) used evidence gleaned from its participants (schools and collegiate leagues) (each incident, btw, was anecdotal and self-reported).

I hypothesize that there are far more serious injuries then that study revealed (in other words the study under reported the number of significant injuries). I am simply trying, with limited resources (and a zero budget), to see if the number of serious incidents is more than what the study leads us to believe.

Note: our collective memories cannot prove that the study over reported injuries because we don't have the entire universe of college/hs covered.

I think that gathering this information (morbid to some; fact finding to others) could cause us to reevaluate the principle "scientific" study concluding that metal is no more dangerous than wood bats.

So, please a little latitude, and let’s build a list of players so we can evaluate the information for ourselves

It tells me there are better hitters in Milb!
Put metal bats in the hands of Milb hitters, which won't happen, and I would not want to see or hear what your son might be reporting from the pitcher's mound.

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:
What confuses me is my son has said that in the last 4 years of wood MILB games he probably has seen more scary moments with bats shattering toward the bump/infield than the 15 years of near miss metal line drives.

At the same time he says there is a definite difference in exit speed.

What does that first hand data tell you. Maybe, that there is danger on the mound regardless.

Same here rz1, it tells me that if there are more injuries with metal these days, it's the bat.
The shatterd bat is bad, you got pieces going everywhere, scary.
If milb had metal bats, or made you wear a helmet, no pitcher would be playing.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
It tells me there are better hitters in Milb!
Put metal bats in the hands of Milb hitters, which won't happen, and I would not want to see or hear what your son might be reporting from the pitcher's mound.

I probably didn't put that in the right perspective. It was not to compare Milb with anything, it was to make a observation from a fist hand point of view. My point was that if it was all wood at the amateur level there MAY be a rise in actual injuries due to other bat issues. It keeps coming back to the issue that the wood guys refuse to address and that is the wood, specifically, the maple bat breakage issue. Pounding on one door while ignoring another makes me wonder if we hide behind the metal safety issues as a way to satisfy our displeasure with metal to begin with

rz1,
I don't think anyone is ignoring maple. It, for me at least, just isn't germane specifically to this topic.
Heck, I read about the dangers with maple all the time and hear on broadcasts and MLB regularly.
Maple is really an issue in professional ball to a large extent and that is in the "capable" hands of Bud and the union to address. Hopefully they will.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
Maple is really an issue in professional ball to a large extent and that is in the "capable" hands of Bud and the union to address. Hopefully they will.

Bill, Maple is the bat of choice at the Home Talent and summer college level in my area and the "incidents" occur at all levels, I've seen them. If you take away the metal capability the manufacturers are going to develop a wood bat that has the best rebound characteristics at the expense of longevity. If wood is the default at the amateur levels all those issues must be identified and rectified. To replace one problem with another is irresponsible IMHO. We are victims of our own technologies and lusts

I don't have any argument with what you are saying.
Clearly, there has been a denigration in maple quality.
I, for one, don't feel the game needs to be power, which is what metal and maple are about.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
I, for one, don't feel the game needs to be power, which is what metal and maple are about.

As a Dad of a pitcher, and a baseball purest, I couldn't agree more. The down side is that purest is often misunderstood, and many times has to pound on a specific negative in order to defend his purest qualities. The answer of "it's not the way the game should be played" does not qualify for a reason to ban/change something when the voting public may say otherwise. I've coached and watched hundreds of youth, HS, and college games and never once have I seen a pitcher injured because of a head shot. However, at the same time I've seen multiple head/face injuries from a hit batsman. Why don't we scream for batters face masks as those injuries are more common?

quote:

I think that gathering this information (morbid to some; fact finding to others) could cause us to reevaluate the principle "scientific" study concluding that metal is no more dangerous than wood bats.

I've been watching my son in pitcher pitches games since nine years old. He'll be seventeen later this spring. That's a lot of games. I've watched lots of other high school and college games. In all those games I've only seen one pitcher take a shot to the head. That was with wood. After regaining consciousness the pitcher walked off the field and played three days later.

So I'm reporting eight years (this is the 9th) of seeing zero incidents of consequence with either metal or wood. What kind of list can you make against all the incidences that did not occur? How can you make a list that would be incomplete from not covering every part of the country? How could you come up with any statistical relevance unless you know the ratio of metal to wood across the country.

Given the ratio of metal to wood from 9U through college I'll guess there are many more injuries with metal than wood. Then again the ratio of metal to wood is probably 100:1 or more from youth ball through college.

This battle can't be won statistically. I can only be won emotionally or by taking the game back to the way it should be played. Showing scores of 12-9 with metal versus 6-4 with wood would be a better argument for change.

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
I, for one, don't feel the game needs to be power, which is what metal and maple are about.

As a Dad of a pitcher, and baseball purest, I couldn't agree more. The down side is that purest is often misunderstood, and many times has to pound on a specific negative in order to defend his purest qualities because the answer of "it's not the way the game should be played" does not qualify for a reason to ban/change something. I've coached and watched hundreds of youth, HS, and college games and never once have I seen a pitcher injured because of a head shot. However, at the same time I've seen multiple head/face injuries from a hit batsman. Why don't we scream for batters face masks as those injuries are more common? I think the purest answer is "it's not the way the game should be played"

They do have face mask for batters, but the difference is the batter has a better chance of getting out of the way or protecting themselves than a pitcher which may or may not be in a proper defensive position after the delivery of the ball and the pitcher does not have a helmet such as a batter.

I have seen a good share of pitchers, some better than others who have been unlucky enough to have missed the batted ball coming back at him and as you can imagine many more batted balls that have closely missed the pitcher or have been caught.

I still think there is a good chance that the pitcher no matter how good defensively he is, needs protection from head injuries no matter what type of bat used.

Another player who recovered from a metal bat; very serious head shot was Tanner Scheppers from Fresno at the 2008 NCAA San Diego Regional. He came back the next year and eventually was drafted first round supplemental by the Rangers.

As for wooden bats being projectiles, my son was playing 3b and dove of a ball down the line and the bat's barrel ended up by his mid-section. He ended up tearing a knee ligament, who knows if it was from landing horizonally, turning improperly or from also trying not to get speared by the bat?

quote:

I probably didn't put that in the right perspective. It was not to compare Milb with anything, it was to make a observation from a fist hand point of view. My point was that if it was all wood at the amateur level there MAY be a rise in actual injuries due to other bat issues.

Would you prefer head injuries that require an induced coma to have a CHANCE at survival due to a ball off the metal bat? Or would you prefer the possibility of a laceration due to a wood bat hitting you and maybe cutting the skin?

I know they've had a few incidents of umpires (and maybe others?) getting hit with the broken end of a bat and causing a pretty good cut, but have to wonder which would be the worse injury??

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
Would you prefer head injuries that require an induced coma to have a CHANCE at survival due to a ball off the metal bat? Or would you prefer the possibility of a laceration due to a wood bat hitting you and maybe cutting the skin?

Would you rather be hit by a ball causing a bump on your head or a piece of wood embedded in your eye causing blindness.

Bulldog you take any scenario and build to satisfy the answer that you want to portray. Bottom line both have potential, both are proven dangerous, pick your poison, but be consistant.

quote:

Would you rather be hit by a ball causing a bump on your head or a piece of wood embedded in your eye causing blindness.

Bulldog you take any scenario and build to satisfy the answer that you want to portray. Bottom line both have potential, both are proven dangerous, pick your poison, but be consistant.

You're right. Each case is dangerous, but which is more dangerous? Has there been a single case of a player or umpire getting a piece of wood embedded in the eye causing blindness? Sure, there's the risk but has it ever happened? I have never heard of a case.


I am in favor of doing away with metal bats just because I don't like metal bats. I hate the sound, I hate the fact that it makes it easier to hit, and the increased speed of the ball.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
You're right. Each case is dangerous, but which is more dangerous?
I guess that all depends when it happens. Is there evidence that Gunner would not have been injured if the kid swinging the bat was using wood. Is there a chance the wood bat may have inflicted worse damages? Anyone who has those answers can work for me on some investments I have.

Has there been a single case of a player or umpire getting a piece of wood embedded in the eye causing blindness? Sure, there's the risk but has it ever happened? I have never heard of a case.
The key word is potential and my point through this whole debate is whether the issue is safety or just the dislike of metal in the game. If it is safety, then address all the issues involved with wood bats also

I am in favor of doing away with metal bats just because I don't like metal bats. I hate the sound, I hate the fact that it makes it easier to hit, and the increased speed of the ball.
In which order, please be honest

rz1, I put it in order already. That sound drives me nuts. Always has; that's why we probably have 5 or 6 wooden bats that I've used over the years, but I'm not sure if we have a single metal bat here at home. I used a metal bat, but when I got to high school I used a wooden bat for BP and drills.

Thanks for the honesty Dog.