S-B Bats

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, where do you come up with this "fact"? Do you have this "fact" in writing from ASA, or NFHS, or a bat manufacturer? Because, that would contradict and violate the ASA statement that bats must pass the ASA 2004 bat standard to be legal in championship play, as well as the contract between ASA and the manufacturers that all bats be presented for testing.

This whole "fact" that confirms your point is total speculation on your part; and you wouldn't have said "if", if you knew otherwise. How can you speculate about a "fact" that is the premise of your point?

Simple. It is not possible for a bat to have passed in 2001 a test that did not exist until 2004. Obviously, all those bats with "approval" dates before 2004 were NOT submitted to the 2004 test. They were merely grandfathered.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Simple. It is not possible for a bat to have passed in 2001 a test that did not exist until 2004. Obviously, all those bats with "approval" dates before 2004 were NOT submitted to the 2004 test. They were merely grandfathered.

So, because they left the original approval date on the approved bat list, rather than change all entries, that is your "fact"? Even though it now contradicts not only ASA but NFHS, which state if the the bat has the 2000 cert and is on the approved bat list, that it has passed the 2004 standard?

Quite a leap of faith, given the inherent contradictions in your own point. But, hardly a "fact".

[AtlUmpSteve]

Added from further review. C555 is the name of an aluminum alloy used several bat manufacturers in the 2000-2002 era. It was on several Louisville Slugger bats, as well as Worth, Steele's, and others.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, because they left the original approval date on the approved bat list, rather than change all entries, that is your "fact"? Even though it now contradicts not only ASA but NFHS, which state if the the bat has the 2000 cert and is on the approved bat list, that it has passed the 2004 standard?

Quite a leap of faith, given the inherent contradictions in your own point. But, hardly a "fact".

Hardly a leap of faith. ASA claims all bats must pass the 2004 BPS, but apparently not all have been tested. Just going by what they publish on the list - approval dates prior to 2004. If the bat was approved to the 2004 BPS in 2001, they have technology that they better guard carefully, or the Vulcans will be soon paying them a visit.

ASA has historically talked out of the side of their mouth on this kind of thing; they publish a rule and then back off under pressure from the manufacturers; past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior.

Therefore, a statement on a web site is hardly credible when the rest of their rules and lists to not back that up. Look at rule 3 carefully. It does not mention the 2004 BPS at all. It talks about stickers and lists. If they really were firm on this 2004 BPS thing, there would not be "other" ways of getting a bat into ASA Championship Play - umpire judgment for one. Grandfathering for another.

My mistake in all of this was also taking NFHS at their word that they meant it when they said the bat must meet the 2004 BPS. Apparently not. It just has to be "approved" by ASA.

[justmom]

Louisville Slugger SB103 Genesis without a recertification mark? The other bats on this press release seem to have made it back onto the approved list, but the Genesis only is listed with the recertification mark. http://www.asasoftball.com/communica...ry.asp?nid=182

[IRISHMAFIA]

In this world of technology and space-age mathematics, why is it so difficult to believe that comparative studies between the 2000 & 2004 test results could not determine whether a bat tested under the earlier test would have qualified under the latter?

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

In this world of technology and space-age mathematics, why is it so difficult to believe that comparative studies between the 2000 & 2004 test results could not determine whether a bat tested under the earlier test would have qualified under the latter?

Damn. Just what I was going to say, Mike. That's why you make the big bucks. Thank you.

If x + y = xy in 2000, x + y probably still equals xy in 2004, 2007, and 2695.

[Dakota]

As I understand it, the test setup and test specifications both differ between the two tests. I seriously doubt that the test results for the 2000 test could be mathematically converted to how that bat would have tested under the 2004 test. It that were possible, there would have been no need for the 2004 test. All they'd have to do is continue to use the 2000 test and convert the math.