|
I'll bite.
There are good arguements on both sides of this. One side maintains that the lower mass gained(lower inertia) by corking a bat that increases the bats speed is not enough to overcome the mass/collison ratio provided by a heavier bat. The thought being that the two cancell each other out. If that's true then the only advantage gained is in contact proficiency.
Reducing the mass (lowering the moment-of-inertia) increases the swing speed - which increases batted-ball speed. But at the same time the lower mass reduces the effectiveness of the collision - which decreases the batted-ball speed. Which effect is greater is a toss-up. But since the two effects offset each other, there appears to be absolutely no scientific advantage to using a corked bat - at least for hitting home runs. There would be an advantage to just making contact, however. Because the bat is lighter and can be swung faster, a player can wait a few milliseconds longer before commiting to a swing. This means he can watch the pitched ball travel about 5 or 6 more feet before deciding to swing. For a slumping player this may help make contact with the ball more often. But, a corked bat will not make the ball go faster or further.
The other side will go into in depth detail to describe the optimum advantage in the bats compression/decompression ratio and how the ball with be deflected off of the bat at a higher speed similar to a trampoline effect. However. as I'm of the opinion that this is not true I'll wait to hear others elaborate on the merits of this claim.
SA?
Tim.
|