By: Coach Bob,
I watched with interest the special on the metal bat controversy last night. I saw bits and pieces of Thurston’s comments, Steve Baum’s comments, and comments from the metal bat manufacturers. I listened carefully to the guy who had “quit” (Riley) because of the danger of the bats (the alleged designer). I listened to the VP from H&B, and the Easton guru. I saw bits and pieces of “data sheets” (usually the one’s seen on Baum’s web page (http://www.baumbat.com) - the one that I commented on earlier (see below). I listened to some say that there is no valid testing methods, and others say that Steve Baum wants $400,000 to defray some of the development costs of his “testing apparatus.” And I saw pitchers getting hit in the face with line drives off the bats - one metal (Ryan Mills) and one wood (some pro player). I saw the stitches of the surgery that put a metal plate in the head of an Australian youngster. I saw a father (and coach) who had to take his son in for emergency brain surgery, with paralysis a possibility. And I heard numbers being bandied about - like “metal bats are a 100 million dollar per year business,” and other comments, e.g., “H&B actually loses money making wooden bats.” And I heard about FBI confiscations, agreements not to talk, lawsuits and counter-suits - both filed and (as yet) un-filed. Frankly, I was disappointed with the segment. It simply is a rehash of what ALL of us already know. Or do we? What do we know - and what can we say from those data? 1. The aluminum-alloy bat, a relatively recent innovation (although aluminum bats were first available in 1974), has caused a controversy - with the root issue (of one side) allegedly being player safety. 2. The metal bat industry is a profitable business, and apparently grosses over $100M per year (some say twice that). This fact is important because it introduces a second root issue - financial considerations (including plant shutdowns, layoffs, reduced “flow-down” money to college coaches, advertising, and a myriad of other mo
ney-based concerns). 3. Actual data from injuries caused by these bats is sparse and most certainly statistically insignificant. Yes, there have been some data - some cases - and they have been tragic, but there is insufficient data to relate an increase of injury using accepted statistical methods and practices. 4. Comparative test data on the bats, both wood and aluminum is also sparse, (the only test data that are readily available that I am aware of is Baum’s). The ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) data is apparently both incomplete (ran out of funding for the testing) and unavailable (meaning locked in someone’s safe). To his credit, Steve Baum, personal agenda or no, is making a serious attempt to quantitate the problem, that is, to determine the degree of increased risk - if any. 5. The physics of the interaction of “hot” bats, although complex and reasonably technical, is understood - but (unfortunately) only by scientists and engineers. Attempts to explain the physics to coaches, players, and parents have been feeble, and, for the most part, are gross oversimplifications. For example, the infamous “trampoline” effect is a straightforward physical phenomenon, with simple examples seen (and understood) in the world of tennis, squash, and racquetball. 6. The increase in ball exit velocity from hits in the sweetspot by the new bats (based on the Baum data) is only about 7% or so. Admittedly, reaction times (of less than 400 milliseconds) is a problem. But an increase in velocity of only 7% is NOT the REAL PROBLEM. 7. The REAL PROBLEM is that in the new alloy bats, the sweetspot is significantly enlarged. Baum data suggest an increase in sweetspot area of about 400%. This means that MANY more hits will provide an exit velocity that is near maximum. THAT is the problem! Even weaker hitters will “benefit” from the increased size of the sweetspot and hit a lot of hard balls. Two good analogies are the oversized tennis racket, and the oversized golf club faces. Miss-hit results are nea
rly as good as perfect hit results! Now THIS is a statistical problem that we can work on - and do so BEFORE a lot of players provide the “database” the bat manufacturers are demanding. I propose that it is possible NOW to determine the POTENTIAL of injury to players (based on controllable parameters of projectile frequency (how many hard hits are there now, as compared to 10 years ago, for example), projectile velocity, target cross-section (size of the pitcher, for example), taking into account “normal” reactions times (something that also should be measured). We can build a statistical model - that will show us the “injury” data - before the injuries happen! I am convinced that this kind of research (including the modeling) can be done RIGHT NOW - in the laboratory, and on computers - without endangering anyone - and without sending out questionnaires to determine how many have ALREADY been hurt! At first, I was not convinced that this metal bat thing was a problem. I am now convinced that it is. But we are looking at the wrong parameters. We’re looking at injuries that have already occurred - and ball exit velocities, and trampoline effects. What we should be looking at is the INCREASED NUMBER OF HARD-HIT BALLS (by all players) and THE RATE OF THAT INCREASE. In short, it is my opinion that we’ve been worrying about ants in the basement (ball exit speed, trampoline effects, financial factors, who-sues-who, hidden data, etc.) when we have elephants on the roof (LOTS more hard hit balls). I am (strangely?) with Bear. Everyone should go back to wood. Several small bat manufacturers (Sticks by Stan, etc.) are apparently profitable making only wood versions (ash and maple). Why can’t H&B or anyone else be profitable again making wooden bats? Besides, nothing - absolutely NOTHING - beats the sound made by the crack of the (wood) bat on the ball in the springtime!
Date: May 03, 1998 at 23:29