Reply #16: What's missing here is scientific collection of facts ... [View All]

[eppur_se_muova]

Which can be found here: http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/bats-new/alumwood.html

It's interesting to note that the advantage of aluminum bats is not just that they are made of stronger material, but that in consequence the handles can be made hollow. So some variation in the design is possible, with the goal of keeping the bats safe from breaking but performing no better than wood bats. {Bold highlighting added by me.}

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.

Note that there are rules in place to restrict the 'performance' of bats, but are they enforced? See
http://www.espn.go.com/gen/s/2000/0329/453294.html

The firestorm started back in July of '98, at the Ritz Carlton in Kansas City. The NCAA, concerned with player safety and rapidly rising scores in college baseball games, held a summit of ball manufacturers and bat-makers. During the conference, a former Louisville Slugger consultant named Jack Mackay stood up and accused his former company and Easton, a competitor, of making hotter bats each season, ignoring the NCAA's demands that they hold performance to 1994 standards. Bat-makers strongly denied Mackay's accusation.

Mackay explained that bat-makers could improve performance by adding weight to the handle in order to move the balance point (or center of gravity) of the bat closer to the player's hands. Since a bat acts as a lever when swung in a game, a balance point closer to the knob allows hitters to move the barrel of the bat faster through the swing. (The balance point of a wood bat cannot be manipulated nearly as much since it is not hollow.) So a bat that moves at one speed in a testing facility can move at a much quicker rate when whipped through a strike zone on the field by a player Mackay suggested a uniform balance point for all aluminum bats. "The single most important factor in controlling bat performance is balance point," he says.

The obvious advantage of banning aluminum bats is that an aluminum bat can be distinguished from a wooden one on sight; there is no need for testing or measuring to see if the bat is legal. If the testing procedures for legal aluminum bats could be made sufficiently simple that a bat could be tested even during a game, then it seems that the proposed legislation is unnecessary -- legal aluminum bats should hit the ball no faster than wooden ones, and be much less likely to break.