This just arrived. Anything new?
 

June 12, 2007

DON’T TAKE MY BAT AWAY


We need your help!

Recently the New York City Council voted to ban the use of aluminum bats for all high school ballplayers. Now the New Jersey Legislature is considering doing the same thing, but worse! The Jersey ban would forbid the use of aluminum bats for everyone who plays baseball – from youth baseball to high school ball. They even considered banning aluminum bats from softball.

When they realized what a bad idea that was, they dropped softball but still want to ban aluminum for all baseball games in the state.

This is an unfair assault on parents’, coaches’ and players’ rights to make choices on which sports equipment they like best.

A broad coalition of baseball organizations including Babe Ruth League, Inc. have officially launched the “DON’T TAKE MY BAT AWAY” coalition, a grassroots campaign to protect a player’s right to pick the bat they like best, wood or aluminum.

The coalition includes many baseball organizations such as:

National High School Baseball Coaches Association
USA Baseball
Little League
Babe Ruth League
PONY Baseball
The New York City Council cited safety as their only reason for banning aluminum bats. But wood bats break, shatter and splinter, which introduces other risks to the game and boosts costs for parents and leagues.

A study by the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research showed that in the past twenty years, a catastrophic injury to a pitcher occurred only once for every million high school aged participants. Independent governmental groups like the Consumer Product Safety Commission said aluminum bats are as safe as wood bats.

Bottom Line: Today’s metal bats are regulated to hit like wood, and both bat types are safe.

We believe Babe Ruth League, Little League and Pony Baseball should decide based on their knowledge and the various studies they’ve reviewed.

The Don’t Take My Bat Away coalition in New Jersey is launching a grassroots effort now to help parents, coaches and players who support letting players use the bat they like best, wood or aluminum.

A new website, www.DTMBA.com will serve as the online nerve center for this campaign, providing all the scientific evidence regarding the safety of aluminum bats, keeping you informed on the campaign’s progress, and providing newcomers with the means to make their own voices heard.

Here is one easy thing you can do TODAY to help: Sign the Online Petition Today!

Visit the website: www.DTMBA.com and make your voice heard by signing the online petition. It is critically important to sign-up to support safety and player choice when it comes to using aluminum bats. Thank you for doing your part for this coalition effort.

Sincerely,
Steven Tellefsen
President/CEO
Babe Ruth League, Inc.

P.S. Don’t let the New York City ban of aluminum bats spread to New Jersey! Join this growing coalition by signing the online petition today.

Once you know an organization is fudging the facts it makes you wonder how many facts are indeed being fudged.

Baseball was meant to be played with wood bats. Stop yer cryin', ya sissies.

If Metal hits like wood, then how come so many power-hittin metal bat players suddenly become warning track power spray hitters with wood bats?

Yeah, like that Ryan Howard guy.

I spend a bit of time around the Cape Cod League in the summer and have gotten friendly with some of the host parents. They all tell me that a kid's college average will drop 100 points on the Cape using wooden bats.

Metal built to perform like wood? I think not....

-g

Anyone else remember graphite bats? Back in the '70's, I remember graphite bats that performed similar to wood. Just a thought.

I've always enjoyed working wooden bat leagues more than metal bat leagues by a factor of about one hundred. It's more like baseball.

With metal bats now costing in the $300-$400 range, and maple wooden bats bought in bulk for $30-$40 each, the economic advantage of metal has become far slighter than it used to be. So the argument that wooden bats are more expensive over the course of a season has less merit. For those of you who weren't around when metal first came to baseball, that was the initial reason they gained in popularity -- metal was far cheaper in the long run.

So why is metal still being used? Obviously, because they're easier to hit with and the ball responds better off of them. They have a much larger sweet spot. Hitters can still smack the ball pretty good off the handle. They make hitting considerably easier.

Lousy reason, in my opinion, to keep them around.

Wood makes for a better baseball game on the average. How do I know? I have many years of experience working both and, to my perception, there is no competition. Wood rules.

Wood is Good!
 

There is an adult "city league" whose teams are comprised mostly of JUCO and Div III players.

Last year they decided to go to wood only for all regular season games (it's an NABF league I think).

Using metal:
The teams used to score 8-10 runs per team per game, and the 7 inning contests used to last about 2.5 - 3 hrs.

Using Wood:
The scores are now 4-5 runs per team and the games are done in about 1.5 hrs.

Using the above data, wood is more difficult to hit with.... and umpires (at least this one) LOVE wood bat games!

I took a quick look at internet site that sells bats. Here's the description of one of the bats. Most that I looked at make similar claims. I didn't see it noted anywhere that any of these bats act just like wood.

The addition of CNT, make possible by Zyvex NanoSolve materials, strengthens composite structures to allow for bigger sweet spots and maximum performance along the entire length of the barrel. The Easton Stealth Comp CNT bats also offer maximum bat head speed with the patented 2-piece ConneXion. Acting like a hinge, the ConneXion provides the most efficient energy transfer from handle to barrel, resulting in maximum bat head whip for a quicker bat and more power through the hitting zone.

he he he.... that's priceless! Someone should post that info on www.dtmba.com

If you want to do away with metal bats because the perform better, more power to you. But that is not the reason being given. The reason being given is that metal is more dangerous than wood and there is no statistical proof. In fact, metal bats are designed to be as safe as wood bats.

Further, the government should not be involved in deciding what kind of equipment is used to play a game. The decision should be made by the sport's own governing body.

What causes a batter to hit with greater power? The bat speed through the hitting zone... metal bats designed to increase this factor are generating greater power. I assume that "power" is actually the energy the ball would transfer on impact (force) which is mass x velocity. Since the mass is static, it stands to reason that the velocity of the batted ball is greater. If the velocity is greater, Fx has less time to react to the batted ball and stands at greater risk of being hit.

They're not hitting for more power; they're hitting for power more. If they could hit the sweet spot on wood as often as they do on metal they'd hit it out just as often. Don't confuse the HR stats dropping for a change in power; it's a change in how well hit the ball is.

[QUOTE=greymule]June 12, 2007

Hopefully the metal bat will "go away"

This argument reminds of the days when baseball / football stadiums went from grass to artifical turf.

Eventually most if not all went back to grass the way the game was meant to be played.

The same holds true for metal vs. wood. The game was meant for wood bats.

Also, if a college student does want to give the PROS a shot why use metal? He will be at a disadvantage when he goes to A, AA or Triple A ball where wood is used.

All I can say is this.

On average, wood bat games are quicker than metal bat games. One of the advantages of the game played by metal is the DP balls (provided the fielder can field it) Since the ball comes at you quicker you have a better chance of completing the DP.

On the "flip side"
you get those "cheap" otherwise known as the metal bat base hit when a player gets jammed.

Personally I hope all leagues go back to wood. Let's wait and see

Pete Booth

Anything new?

Let's see....whining, misleading claims, more whining...

Nope, nothing new.

"Further, the government should not be involved in deciding what kind of equipment is used to play a game. The decision should be made by the sport's own governing body."

If you know it or not, the government is involved regulating everything from the grass seed to to the fence surrounding the baseball field. Any bureaucrat or politician worth his/her salt is on constant look out for new ways or things to regulation to increase job securiety and/or protect the public from themselves because they are too stupid to know what is dangourous and what isn't. The government always knows better than parents. The government knows this because they know parents aren't smart enough to make thier own decisions, let alone decide what is safe for thier children.

Wait til they mandate foam rubber bats for the good of "the children"

Foam rubber is not environmentally friendly and can harm the child's self esteem.

In Canada a lot of the upper levels are going to wood again. Some of the levels using metal have limits on the length-weight differential. I like it !!

So if a ball comes off a bat at (just to use a number) 150mph 12 times a game using metal bats or 2 times using wood bats, which bat will put F1 at more risk?

If a given speed is a reasonable risk, it is a reasonable risk any number of times. If a given speed is an unreasonable risk, it is an unreasonable risk any number of times. I have yet to see a pitcher get hit because he was tired out by dodging balls earlier in a game.

There is a certain umpire on this forum (I won't mention his name -- he can say who he is if he wants) with whom I worked an MSBL (28+) game in Massachusetts one day a couple of years ago. He was the base umpire in, "B," and had a rocket smashed at him off a metal bat.

He had no chance to get out of the way. The best he could do was turn slightly. The ball nailed him in the wallet -- as I recall it actually broke his credit cards and driver's license in half. He also said he had a pretty good welt there for days afterwards.

That never would've happened with a wooden bat. He would've had the time to avoid the ball had it come off a wooden bat.

There's little doubt in my mind that metal is more dangerous.

Why do you believe that a wooden bat couldn't have gotten the same result? Is it because a good ump got hit and you can't believe that he couldn't get out of the way of a wooden bat hit? Jim, you're a good guy, but forgive me when I trust the studies more than random examples.

In any game there is a certain amount of risk.
In football, if you don't wear a helmet you risk head injury, if you wear a helmet you risk head injury, the risk however is reduced.
As is the risk in baseball using wood bats vs. metal bats.

A given speed may be a reasonable risk once or twice a game using wooden bats but may be an unreasonable risk if it occurs 12 times a game with metal bats.

For example:
If an injury occurs once every thousand times a ball comes off a bat at max speed then the more times we reach max speed the more injuries. If the metal bat produces max speeds 5 to 6 more times than wood bats there will obviously be more injuries.
Apparently in NY that was unacceptable.

Frequency of the risky event certainly plays into the equation, wouldn't you agree?

Oh, it's studies that you want? Why didn't you say so? :)

http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/b.../alumwood.html

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

I never hit a baseball with a metal bat. When metal softball bats first appeared (sometime around 1971 or 1972), not only did they hit the ball no farther than wood bats, they felt like a wood bat when you hit the ball. A "blindfolded" batter would not have known he was using a metal bat. (Some guys stuck with their favorite wood bat.)

How many times did I see a wood bat break and injure somebody? Zero in uncountable baseball and softball games. Today, even on some of the top SP teams, F1 and F5 wear lexan faceguards. Still, I've seen pitchers carried off in ambulances after a liner off the foot.

I quit playing SP more than 20 years ago, when there were no HR limits and it was difficult to hit a Dudley Day-Nite over a 300' fence, even with the metal bats that existed at the time. Today, guys in their 50s routinely "crush" balls" far over the same 300-foot fence whose warning track they couldn't reach at age 25.

As for the state regulating bats, I'm always wary when the government decides it's going to protect us all from ourselves. New Jersey politicians, for example, are now considering banning 50-caliber rifles as an "anti-terror" measure, on the basis of "you could shoot an airplane with this type of firearm." As if terrorists intent on shooting at airplanes couldn't procure whatever firearm they wanted, as if somebody couldn't pull over on the NJ Turnpike near Newark Airport and use a 30-06 with a scope to put a round through an aircraft windshield.

To me, the ideal situation would be if the governing bodies themselves regulated the metal bats so that they hit like wood bats. Then we'd have the best of both worlds.

Incidentally, to umpire the state Babe Ruth softball tournament last year, I had to join the BR association and learn their rules. It is interesting that as long as a bat meets the Babe Ruth specs for length, weight, circumference, and grip, it is legal. They have no list of illegal or banned bats. Therefore, the red hot Miken Ultra (with which ANYBODY can hit a ball 300 feet, or even titanium bats (banned in all other codes), are legal in Babe Ruth softball. (Also odd: all BR rules on baserunning are taken verbatim from the OBR book, except that they prohibit deliberate crashes when the fielder has the ball.)

My attorney insists that I append the following disclaimer:

NOTICE TO THE GOVERNMENT: I, greymule, do not advocate terrorism or shooting at aircraft or any other illegal target. I am, in the hopes that the great and powerful government will take appropriate action, merely calling attention to a method that terrorists might choose to employ. It is also possible that terrorists could use metal bats to attack government officials, so please get to work on that, too.

I trust the studies

Doing a truly scientific study costs a great deal of money. You need to hire experts in many fields, including statistics, and you have to have independent experts validate your findings. Of course, you can collect anecdotal evidence or gather what you think are valid statistics and call it a study, but I doubt that anyone—even the deep-pockets "National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research"—has ever done a valid scientific study of metal versus wood bats.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I meant that meaningful data concerning injuries cannot be gathered.

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

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]

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.

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

I have never seen a ball come off a bat hotter before or since. It's the only instance of batted ball umpire interference I've been involved with since I umpired my first game in 1983.

I had time to turn my *** cheek and that's it. The only reason my wallet was in my pocket in the first place was that we weren't in a terribly nice neighborhood, so my usual "leave keys, wallet, etc. in the car" didn't happen that day.

There's no way that ball comes off as hot with a wood bat.

I work and assign a 44-team wood bat league. If they ever go back to metal, I'd stop umpiring. All these 3-1, 4-3 ballgames over in 2:10 would be 12-10 3:30 slugfests. No thanks.

This post will likely add nothing to this thread, but here goes:

I was watching the USC vs. UNC super regional this w/e on TV. In either game 2 or 3, there was an inning were USC F8 and F9 made back-to-back spectacular catches.

Anyways, the catch made by F9 is the one that still sticks out in my mind. During live action, when the ball was hit I said to myself, "good pitch, he got it on the hands." I even thought to myself, the very next second, "its a metal bat it'll probably be caught at straight-away depth instead of in shallow right field."

Next thing I know, F9 is make a spectacular catch leaping and crashing into the outfield wall.

Now that's what's crazy about metal bats. I watched the replay several times, and my initial reaction was correct: contact with the pitch was made no where near the part of the bat we normally consider the "sweet spot". Nevertheless, it resulted in a near home-run and/or extra-base hit. If using a wood bat, I'm convinced the B/R would have been "sawed off" and it would have been a pop up in shallow right field...and the bat would have likely been broken.

As an umpire...safety issues aside (which can be debated forever)...this is why I hate metal bats. They cause games to go on forever, and frankly F1's who make a good quality pitch often still give up a hit.

As far as wood vs metal bats, it doesn't matter what hit the ball when the ball hits you! It hurts, it causes damage and it can be deadly. But what is more amazing is how a person stands less than 60 feet away after releasing a projectile traveling 90 plus MPH toward another person swinging an object 70 plus MPH (in the opposite direction of the projectile) with intention of reversing that projectile at a comparable speed!

In other words, part of being a pitcher is knowing that you are in harm's way - that's a fact that you cannot dispute! What does matter is how quickly that projectile reaches the pitcher - and again the fact remains that metal bats can do this faster than a wood bat. That is why BESR was invented!?!

Regards

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