ASA Bat Lists
 

The ASA has updated their bat lists today:


ASA Bat Lists

They went a whole month without updating it. Impressive! :eek:

Can someone give us the short version? What is added, subtracted or otherwise changed (besides the date)??

Well, 2 bats were added to the "banned with a 2004 stamp" list.

And the one page list is now two. :(

the list is getting too long to be useful .....

No kidding... They added at least 6 or 7 bats since the last list. Haven't had time to parse through to find the additions.

If you look at the list with pictures there are red letters "NEW" beside the new bats that were added, looks like there were 9 added this time.

9! 9 bats! Ah... Ah... Ahhhhhh...

But seriously, it's getting out of hand.

Do the majority of these bats have a 2000 stamp on them? Or is this an all-inclusive list?

If so, require a 2000 or 2004 stamp, get rid of 3-1-A-3, and just print the ones that have the 2000 or 2004 stamps. The bats from 2000 are practically dead (and rare to find these days, even in so-called "beer league"), so just ditch them all.

We have two shorter lists available to us: 1) The banned bats with the 2004 stamp list, and 2) The no-longer grandfathered bats list.

My way of handling this is:

1) No stamp of any kind - out (with the exception of some old bats I recognize - occastionally still used as a "team" bat, such as the old burgandy Lousiville TPS)
2) 2004 stamp and one of the 6 - out
3) 2000 stamp and one of the grandfathered bats - out
4) otherwise, in

Eight of the nine bats added were Worth. I wouldn't doubt if some of these were never meant to be ASA approved.

And I agree with that, but there's one problem - consistency. That's my biggest problem with 3-1-A-3. Some umpires say, "no stamp, no good." Others use their discretion on a bat-by-bat basis. This gets us into trouble when we hear, "but I was able to play with it last night. Why not tonight?" While "umpire's discretion" is the correct answer, it's not a very convincing one.

We're not bat experts or metallurgists (well, maybe some of us, but not all). We can't tell if the bat "would have passed" the 2004 test, nor should we be expected to pass/fail a bat just by guessing as to whether it would've passed today's standards.

I say get rid of 3-1-A-3. Require the 2000 and/or 2004 stamps and be done with it. Let's get this list down to something manageable.

In my judgment, "would have passed" the 2004 test means it is too old to have a stamp of any kind. It has to look old, and it has to be an old bat I recognize.

HS ball is simpler - no stamp, no play for my step 1. The rest is the same.

I think that constitutes the majority of the list - bats that were manufactured for non-ASA play.

Given that we are now nearing 10 years from the first approval stamp, I believe it is time for ASA to dispense with the umpire judgment part of the rule and go with a simple "no stamp, not legal" approach. That would reduce the list to a current list of 16 bats (the 2004 stamped non-approved, and the no-longer-grandfathered list). It would also mean ASA would no longer have to keep a list of 16,293 U-trip bats (with pictures) on their non-approved list.

If it is approved, put a stamp on it. If it isn't, don't. If a previously stamped bat fails subsequent rolling or break-in or spot testing, add it to the (much shorter) "banned with a stamp" list.

Didn't ASA attempt to keep out non-stamped bats a few years ago? Maybe I've taken too many tipped fouls to the head... ;)

Again, I agree with Tom. Require the stamp. Mike, can you jot this down for the next rule change committee? That's my primo suggestion this year.