This just arrived. Anything new?

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Statistical evidence doesn't bear it out. Injury rates have not skyrocketed in metal bat leagues.

You cannot say that statistical evidence doesn't bear it out. No comprehensive studies have been conducted on the issue because so few leagues below the professional level use wooden bats, and meaningful data cannot be gathered. The question isn't whether there are more injuries -- injuries of this type are fairly rare in baseball. The question is whether the injuries are more serious.

Would a kid like Matt Cook, a freshman pitcher from Massachusetts whose skull was fractured by a line drive during batting practice this past March, have suffered the bleeding and swelling in his brain if wooden bats had been mandatory? Or would the reduction in ball speed from a wooden bat have given him just enough reaction time to lessen the damage? Would Matt have been spared the months of speech, physical, and occupational therapy required to give him a normal life again?

Would the half dozen or so kids killed each year by blunt force trauma to their heads or chests have survived if wooden bats were used instead of metal? Would that 12-year-old from New Jersey still be alive today?

I don't need a study to tell me what's obvious after witnessing what metal bats have become capable of doing over the last 20+ years.

[LakeErieUmp]

You can ask Herb Score if a liner off a wood bat causes injury.

[LakeErieUmp]

Ray Chapman was hit in the head with a pitched ball and died. Tony Conigliaro was hit in the head with a pitched ball and did not. There is no way Carl Mays threw a 1920 baseball faster than Jack Hamilton threw the more tightly wound 1967 version. Sometimes it is not just velocity. Things happen. Sad, but they happen. Anecdotal incidents really don't determine whether metal bats are inherently more dangerous.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by LakeErieUmp

Ray Chapman was hit in the head with a pitched ball and died. Tony Conigliaro was hit in the head with a pitched ball and did not. There is no way Carl Mays threw a 1920 baseball faster than Jack Hamilton threw the more tightly wound 1967 version. Sometimes it is not just velocity. Things happen. Sad, but they happen. Anecdotal incidents really don't determine whether metal bats are inherently more dangerous.

Chapman was not wearing a helmet, and the baseball was so dirty that he never saw it coming.

Conigliaro was struck on the cheek, and was not wearing a helmet with an ear-flap. Still, he returned to the game a year and a half later.

Studies show that balls coming off a metal bat achieve significantly higher velocities. See the study I linked to, as well as the 2001 Journal of Applied Biomechanics study.

Anecdotal evidence is valuable in conjunction with those studies. Common sense dictates that a higher velocity equates to lesser reaction time and harder impact.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by LakeErieUmp

You can ask Herb Score if a liner off a wood bat causes injury.

Yep, Herb Score -- a Major League pitcher who was indeed struck in the face from a line drive off a wooden bat. Herb Score, who also recovered his full vision and returned to play professional baseball again.

I wonder if the freshman high schooler Matt Cook will have the same result. Oh, that's right -- Matt first has to relearn how to walk and talk again. How about the 12-year-old in New Jersey? I don't think he'll come back. He's dead.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

Yep, Herb Score -- a Major League pitcher who was indeed struck in the face from a line drive off a wooden bat. Herb Score, who also recovered his full vision and returned to play professional baseball again.

Yeah, he recovered full vision, but his speech was affected. When broadcasting, he would say, "he hits a wong fwy ball to weft field."

[greymule]

meaningful data cannot be gathered

The more I think about "studies" of wood versus metal bats, the more I think a scientific study would be more than just difficult and expensive. It might be impossible. Without two large comparison groups—one using metal bats and one using wood bats—of equal ability, using the same balls on the same fields, playing at the same time of day during the same conditions, the same lighting, the same degree of competitiveness, and over a period of time, the methods for the weighting of the data would be too complex and open to "confounding." And since the players chose to play in the wood-bat league or the metal-bat league (for reasons we don't know), we still don't have random assignment. Forget it. Nobody has done a remotely scientific study of metal versus wood bats.

We also have the issue of metal bats not being remotely uniform. A $25 metal bat is a metal bat. A $400 juiced-up rocket is also a metal bat. So you'd have to account for even more uncertainty.

It's hard enough to do a scientific study even when everything is in place. So we're left with "I heard about a guy who got his face smashed by a [fill in the blank] bat, and . . ."

Be extremely wary whenever you hear someone say, "Studies show. . . ."

This is why every advocacy group has "studies" to support its position.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by greymule

meaningful data cannot be gathered

The more I think about "studies" of wood versus metal bats, the more I think a scientific study would be more than just difficult and expensive. It might be impossible.

I meant that meaningful data concerning injuries cannot be gathered. There have indeed been comprehensive studies of wood versus metal bats. See the article I linked to, and the 2001 Journal of Applied Biomechanics study -- the latter being the definitive study.

[greymule]

I meant that meaningful data concerning injuries cannot be gathered.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. I'm going to check your links.

[LakeErieUmp]

There is this disclaimer smack in the middle of the Kettering study link:

[COLOR="Red"]Disclaimer: While the results were not published in peer-reviewed research journals until 2000-2001, the data for the Crisco-Greenwald batting cage study was collected during 1997-1998. The bats used in this study were manufactured before the NCAA implemented its current performance limits which restrict the performance of an aluminum bat through (i) the "minus-3" Length-weight rule, (ii) the BESR test (ball exit speed ratio), and (iii) the lower limit on moment-of-inertia. Thus, the bats used in this study are not representative of aluminum bats allowed for use at high school and college levels under current NCAA rules. None of the 5 aluminum bats in this study would be legal today. The batted-ball speeds measured in the Crisco-Greenwald study are significantly higher than batted-ball speeds obainted with bats which currently pass the NCAA performance standards. The data from the Crisco-Greenwald study should NOT be used to argue against the use of aluminum bats because this data does not represent the status of bat performance under current NCAA rules. No bat which currently passes the NCAA performance standards will perform as high as the best metal bats in the Crisco-Greenwald study.[/COLOR]

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by LakeErieUmp

There is this disclaimer smack in the middle of the Kettering study link:

Yes there is, concerning the Crisco-Greenwald study. But the NCAA length/weight rule does not significantly alter center-of-mass, moment-of-inertia, trampoline effect, or the distribution of mass -- all of which the Kettering study explains in detail.

[LakeErieUmp]

Yes, SA, it was red in the original. My computer skills are lacking!