Shaved bats in HS play ??

[Crabby_Bob]

Anybody think the ball in this pic is exiting at higher than 98mph after you see the whip on the bat? viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1124&start=10

Camera? This may or may not be real. A focal plane shutter can cause this type of image distortion when conditions are right.

[Sam]

Gone,

There is no doubt that Sarge is right about the hitters improving. My comments were regarding hitters who need juiced bats in order to hit. There are lots of them and they each have two parents who have loud voices in this debate. So the bats are juiced to a level that allows crappy hitters to hit bombs....which makes the trained excellent hitters even more dangerous. My argument is that the bats should be tuned down to show a difference between the good hitters and those who suck. Right now, there isn't much difference.

Again, this is fiction. There is a huge difference. I do the ball exit speed tests annually. Cheater bat speeds are demonstrably higher and easily detected in a BBS test. The problem is not the difference in bats but rather it is a difference in a wide range of hitters and hitter skill sets. You don't need dumber bats you need smarter tests.

You do testing with stationary bats....worthless. The difference, as it is in slowpitch, is that hitters that would never hit a HR with a non-juiced bat are able to hit HRs due solely to the bat they use. I see it every day.

[Sam]

I think TB should qualify the ball exit speed drop comment to reflect that the speeds have dropped according to stationary bat testing.

Anybody think the ball in this pic is exiting at higher than 98mph after you see the whip on the bat?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1124&start=10

How would you suggest I qualify it in a way you won't simply post an unsubstantiated disagreement?

Bat "whip" has almost no real affect on raising the exit speed. A stiffer bat actually works better because the bat deflection absorbs energy rather than transferring it. That particular picture is evidence for the opposite argument. But I'm sure you will disagree with that because it doesn't support your agenda.

Why would a bat manufacturer build a bat that whips if it detracted from performance? Or a golf club manufacturer?

[Tumblebug]

The data gathered and analyzed by the Center for Injury Research is incomplete at best and flawed if reviewed with a jaundiced eye. It is obtained only from "study schools" from athletic trainers who enter the data on-line for injuries that they treat. What happens when a trainer isn't present? Five of the six instances I witnessed this year were not treated by a trainer because a trainer was not at the event. Trainers are always at football games, basketball games, wrestling, and cheerleading events. They are not as often around softball games. They wouldn't know about many injuries.

The data is far from imperical.

The reason Mike doesn't see data at ASA is that nobody gathers data on ASA injuries. Nor does anyone gather data on NSA, USSSA, TCS, et al.

The bottom line is that the results of the study are akin to basing a nationwide study on drivers running stop signs by gathering data on 4 intersections from crossing guards who are present at the intersections 10 hours per week.

It is available data, but it isn't very good or reliable.

You have no source of data that is more dependable. None, nothing, zero, zip, nada, so you refutation is akin to Chicken Little and his claim that the sky is falling. He knows it's true because it hit him in the head.

[Tumblebug]

I think TB should qualify the ball exit speed drop comment to reflect that the speeds have dropped according to stationary bat testing.

Anybody think the ball in this pic is exiting at higher than 98mph after you see the whip on the bat?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1124&start=10

How would you suggest I qualify it in a way you won't simply post an unsubstantiated disagreement?

Bat "whip" has almost no real affect on raising the exit speed. A stiffer bat actually works better because the bat deflection absorbs energy rather than transferring it. That particular picture is evidence for the opposite argument. But I'm sure you will disagree with that because it doesn't support your agenda.

Why would a bat manufacturer build a bat that whips if it detracted from performance? Or a golf club manufacturer?

I don't

[Tumblebug]

Gone,

There is no doubt that Sarge is right about the hitters improving. My comments were regarding hitters who need juiced bats in order to hit. There are lots of them and they each have two parents who have loud voices in this debate. So the bats are juiced to a level that allows crappy hitters to hit bombs....which makes the trained excellent hitters even more dangerous. My argument is that the bats should be tuned down to show a difference between the good hitters and those who suck. Right now, there isn't much difference.

Again, this is fiction. There is a huge difference. I do the ball exit speed tests annually. Cheater bat speeds are demonstrably higher and easily detected in a BBS test. The problem is not the difference in bats but rather it is a difference in a wide range of hitters and hitter skill sets. You don't need dumber bats you need smarter tests.

You do testing with stationary bats....worthless. The difference, as it is in slowpitch, is that hitters that would never hit a HR with a non-juiced bat are able to hit HRs due solely to the bat they use. I see it every day.

Fiction in red: We have a machine that swings a bat and measures the bat speed and the exit velocity of the ball. We do the same testing with LIVE hitters. It has nothing to do with any certification tests but rather our own performance testing. You truly have no idea what I do and have absolutely no business speaking to the subject. You are making it up as you go.

[Sam]

I think TB should qualify the ball exit speed drop comment to reflect that the speeds have dropped according to stationary bat testing.

Anybody think the ball in this pic is exiting at higher than 98mph after you see the whip on the bat?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1124&start=10

How would you suggest I qualify it in a way you won't simply post an unsubstantiated disagreement?

Bat "whip" has almost no real affect on raising the exit speed. A stiffer bat actually works better because the bat deflection absorbs energy rather than transferring it. That particular picture is evidence for the opposite argument. But I'm sure you will disagree with that because it doesn't support your agenda.

Why would a bat manufacturer build a bat that whips if it detracted from performance? Or a golf club manufacturer?

I don't

The answer is that whip helps create distance for those hitters who have lower swing speeds. It helps senior golfers like myself hit the ball farther in order to help us compete with better golfers. My guess is that bat manufacturers do the same.

[Sam]

Gone,

There is no doubt that Sarge is right about the hitters improving. My comments were regarding hitters who need juiced bats in order to hit. There are lots of them and they each have two parents who have loud voices in this debate. So the bats are juiced to a level that allows crappy hitters to hit bombs....which makes the trained excellent hitters even more dangerous. My argument is that the bats should be tuned down to show a difference between the good hitters and those who suck. Right now, there isn't much difference.

Again, this is fiction. There is a huge difference. I do the ball exit speed tests annually. Cheater bat speeds are demonstrably higher and easily detected in a BBS test. The problem is not the difference in bats but rather it is a difference in a wide range of hitters and hitter skill sets. You don't need dumber bats you need smarter tests.

Are you saying that ASA testing of exit speeds involves other than using a stationary bat?

You do testing with stationary bats....worthless. The difference, as it is in slowpitch, is that hitters that would never hit a HR with a non-juiced bat are able to hit HRs due solely to the bat they use. I see it every day.

Fiction in red: We have a machine that swings a bat and measures the bat speed and the exit velocity of the ball. We do the same testing with LIVE hitters. It has nothing to do with any certification tests but rather our own performance testing. You truly have no idea what I do and have absolutely no business speaking to the subject. You are making it up as you go.

Are you saying that ASA testing of exit speeds involves other than using a stationary bat?

[absdad]

I personally know kids swinging shaved bats that's why it kind of gets me angry when people come on here and think that it's ok to do so that we're just jealous of the hard work being put in. Beleive me the only hard work being done is spending that $100 to get the bat shaved.

Who stepped up and said it was "ok"??? I don't think I've seen a post by anyone saying shaved bats were ok. I don't think anyone would have the cajones to do that. I'd probably be suspect of the a hitter's ability anyway, if they or their parents felt the need to mod a bat like that.

[Tumblebug]

I think TB should qualify the ball exit speed drop comment to reflect that the speeds have dropped according to stationary bat testing.

Anybody think the ball in this pic is exiting at higher than 98mph after you see the whip on the bat?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1124&start=10

How would you suggest I qualify it in a way you won't simply post an unsubstantiated disagreement?

Bat "whip" has almost no real affect on raising the exit speed. A stiffer bat actually works better because the bat deflection absorbs energy rather than transferring it. That particular picture is evidence for the opposite argument. But I'm sure you will disagree with that because it doesn't support your agenda.

Why would a bat manufacturer build a bat that whips if it detracted from performance? Or a golf club manufacturer?

I don't

The answer is that whip helps create distance for those hitters who have lower swing speeds. It helps senior golfers like myself hit the ball farther in order to help us compete with better golfers. My guess is that bat manufacturers do the same.

More fiction. Unless the "whip" is perfectly timed it is harmful rather than helpful. The timing requires a specific batspeed, a specific arc length and a specific point of contact. Senior golfers, like you and me, hit a stationary ball at a specific contact point. The science for golf timing is very different because it is repeatable and you don't have an opponent trying to upset your timing (Of course that depends on who you're golfing with and what your betting ).

The only "whip" that is legitimately usable is based on the freedom of your wrists to be able to rotate quickly and therefore "whips" the whole bat. Anything else IMO is marketing hype.