Comments on: A Bad Idea for Solving the Maple Bat Problem

By: Stan

Stan — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:42:49 +0000

I don’t know about maple vs ash, but I do notice one thing when players come to bat. They (most anyway) don’t seem to pay any attention to where the trademark is. Maybe it no longer makes a difference, but when I was a kid playing Little League, Pony League, and high school baseball (the mid sixties) we had no metal bats, so, of course, we used wood bats. We were taught to always have the trademark (99 times out of 100 Louisville Slugger) pointing toward the sky. This naturally meant that when we made contact with the ball the layers of the grain would essentially be parallel to the ground and thus the bat would be more difficult to break. Like I said, it’s hard to imagine that professional ballplayers don’t know how to hold a bat, but it sure appears on TV that they’re paying little or no attention to the grain of the wood.

By: josh

josh — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:49:15 +0000

Wet wood breaks easier then dry wood. Are the maple bats being dried out to the same moister content as the tougher ash bats?

“Hickory is not as “hard” as maple but is is many times tougher………… thus you have Hickory handles on impact tools and not maple.”

hickory is cheaper and easier on the cutting edges of the tools. Maple would be an upgrade if used on any handle. You don’t see to many hickory cutting boards. You do see a lot of maple cutting boards, mallets, butcher block tops, workbench tops. Maple is much tougher then hickory.

By: James Carter

James Carter — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:13:38 +0000

Wood is not unlike metal. “Harder” is not always better in wood or metal applications. Harder equals more brittle, metal or wood (carbide chips very very easily and only a diamond is harder!). Hickory is not as “hard” as maple but is is many times tougher………… thus you have Hickory handles on impact tools and not maple.

By: Jonny Schuerholz

Jonny Schuerholz — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:49:12 +0000

Sheesh, why don’t we just have complete government regulation of the bat industry, just to create more opportunities for people like Sam Holman to seek rents. Maybe Congress should create the Department of Sports and Recreation, complete with a Flying Bats and Other Airborne Objects Regulatory Agency!

By: David

David — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:10:09 +0000

Greyson,

I was just throwing a hypothesis out there at the end. My point is that these articles don’t show anything involving the number of accidents, etc, just that the bats explode violently. Rather, I’d like to see the data, etc, on injury rates, not just bat breakages. Is each bat breakage at the margin more dangerous when they break more often?

By: Greyson

Greyson — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:19:24 +0000

David, you’re really stretching on anecdotal evidence there… of course it is silly to assume since one ump gets injured by a maple bat we should ban them, it’s almost like saying since one minor league first base coach got killed we should mandate the use of a protective device that wouldn’t have saved him… oh wait we already did that.

However, there is plenty of evidence out there that maple bats shatter more frequently and more violently than ash. I’m not sure I buy the idea that anyone is more prepared because they know it will happen more often, nor does it really matter how prepared you are when a jagged bat head comes flying at you at high speed. Generally, most players at this level have taught themselves to be so deep into the game that they unconsciously pay no attention to flying bat particles… and lets not even start with absent-minded fans who get the good seats and don’t keep their heads in the game.

JC is absolutely right, as he almost always is in economic matters, that these proposals make little sense. I’m wondering if it might make sense to extend the interference rule to include a player’s bat… so that if an umpire has reason to believe that a bat, or part thereof, causes a miscue in the field then the batter can be ruled out and the ball dead… this would likely lead to a lot of players wanting to ensure fewer breaks, which is the only way we’re really going to fix the problem.

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:31:30 +0000

Is there any effort to get gather the information about which company’s bats shatter? If what Holman is saying is true – then disqualify manufacturer’s with a high SAAB ratio (Shatters Above Ash Bats).

It really seems we should start with information not hearings.

By: David

David — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:06:41 +0000

What gets me is that every newspaper article I have seen on the subject uses anecdotal evidence. And the anecdote with the more severe damage was to Steve Yeager in 1976, with an ash bat.

Am I the only one who thinks that bats are safer if they break more often because people will be more aware of the fact that they break?

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:37:34 +0000

I saw something yesterday mentioning that there is an MRI company that has developed a product that images the bat to look for internal deficiency. I don’t know what percentage of broken bats is due to structural problems with the wood used vs. the shape of the bat (e.g. to narrow of a handle). Obviously, some research should be done on broken bats to determine why. But, requiring an MRI on all bats could not only help prevent broken bats, but could also help to insure quality product is being delivered.

By: Cliff

Cliff — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:11:24 +0000

Millsy,

Actually, almost all MLB bats were ash until probably the early 90′s when maple started taking part of the market.

Breakage of bats IN LARGE PIECES is so overwhelmingly anecdotally increased (my lyin eyes) that there has to be a new problem. It SEEMS to be worse with maple.

The really funny thing to me about the manufacturer’s comments was that IF a company can tell prior to manufacture that certain wood is insuffcient, then why don’t we get those tests, replicate them (to see if maple really CAN be used safely) and require the testing of the wood to be done independently of the company. Then, if bat prices increase to $200, so be it. If no test will confirm better wood, how can a manufacturer (even if well intentioned) be able to assure making a better bat.