Follow
Donate to HeyBucket.com - Amount:

Welcome Anonymous !

Your Fastpitch Softball Bible
 

Fastpitch Discussions

Jury Idiocy Comes to Montana

What's on your mind?

by SkinnyFats » Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:08 pm

Joe wrote:
SkinnyFats wrote:
Joe wrote:Don't forget about 'type 4'!!!!

He's the attorney and the reason why we pay $300 for a bat that costs less than $50 to make.

I disagree. I think the reason you pay $300 for a $50 bat is because it will hit the ball farther and faster than a $40 wooden bat that costs $20 to make. :D Or are you wasting your money?


I think....

... you don't have a clue...

Wow, nice comeback. You really think it's liability at play here and not simply market forces at work? Really?
User avatar
SkinnyFats
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:57 am

by Skarp » Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:54 pm

SkinnyFats wrote:Wow, nice comeback. You really think it's liability at play here and not simply market forces at work? Really?

Sure it's market forces, but, absent collusion, that wouldn't lead to anyone paying $300 for a bat that cost $50 to make. There is no way the margins are that high. If they were, competing manufacturers would start undercutting each others' prices in an attempt to capture market share.
There is no charge for awesomeness
...or attractiveness.
User avatar
Skarp
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm

by Blind Squirrel » Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:01 pm

Skarp wrote:
SkinnyFats wrote:Wow, nice comeback. You really think it's liability at play here and not simply market forces at work? Really?

Sure it's market forces, but, absent collusion, that wouldn't lead to anyone paying $300 for a bat that cost $50 to make. There is no way the margins are that high. If they were, competing manufacturers would start undercutting each others' prices in an attempt to capture market share.


What about extenuating circumstances?

Perry Mason Squirrel (Judge Judy Law School Graduate)
10 years from now I'll wish I felt like I do these days.
User avatar
Blind Squirrel
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:02 am

by Joe » Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:26 pm

SkinnyFats wrote:Wow, nice comeback. You really think it's liability at play here and not simply market forces at work? Really?


What comeback? I was never behind...

A liability premuim is part of any product you buy, especially any used by the yutes. After that, and Natasha Watley's signature, market forces will help set you back about $300 for you new Easton.
Joe
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:25 pm

by Skarp » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:37 pm

Blind Squirrel wrote:
Skarp wrote:
SkinnyFats wrote:Wow, nice comeback. You really think it's liability at play here and not simply market forces at work? Really?

Sure it's market forces, but, absent collusion, that wouldn't lead to anyone paying $300 for a bat that cost $50 to make. There is no way the margins are that high. If they were, competing manufacturers would start undercutting each others' prices in an attempt to capture market share.


What about extenuating circumstances?

Perry Mason Squirrel (Judge Judy Law School Graduate)

LMAO! Couldn't say, but I understand that Wikipedia has an informative entry on the topic. :lol:
There is no charge for awesomeness
...or attractiveness.
User avatar
Skarp
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm

by jtat32 » Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:38 am

The bats are expensive because they are expensive to design, test, and build. You can thank the US taxpayers for underwriting the materials development that was performed by defense contractors, otherwise, you'd be paying astronomically more. Of course, the bat market would never support that level of R&D.
User avatar
jtat32
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:53 am

by SkinnyFats » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:18 am

Skarp wrote:Sure it's market forces, but, absent collusion, that wouldn't lead to anyone paying $300 for a bat that cost $50 to make. There is no way the margins are that high. If they were, competing manufacturers would start undercutting each others' prices in an attempt to capture market share.

Of course their margins are nowhere near that. I'm not the dumbass who said they cost less than $50 to build, nor the dumbass who said attorneys caused that $50 to become $300 when they were sold. I just used the dumbass's numbers, and pointed out that they hit the ball better than wooden bats, and thus people will pay a lot more for them. Then he got all butt-hurt and told me I'm clueless. :roll:

As jtat32 stated, these bats cost $300 because they're expensive to design and build, and because they work. Liability is just a tiny fraction of their cost. Then the market sorts out what people will pay for them; it's the American Way. No one wants their kid to fall behind in the arms race, and Stevie Wonder can see that these bats hit the ball farther and faster than cheaper bats. So Dad breaks out the Visa card. Whining about the price is silly - don't like it, then don't pay it. A pitcher's parents will thank you for that - their kid will be safer.
Last edited by SkinnyFats on Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SkinnyFats
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:57 am

by Joe » Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:12 am

SkinnyFats wrote:I'm not the dumbass who said they cost less than $50 to build, nor the dumbass who said attorneys caused that $50 to become $300 when they were sold. I'm just the dumbass who doesn't know what I'm talking about...


Score!
Joe
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:25 pm

by Tumblebug » Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:26 pm

The sky is falling, everybody run! The sky is falling . . .

Several issues have been raised here and I think most of them deserve consideration.

While the incident is truly tragic, nobody is actually at fault here. This is a case where hard facts and sympathy made a jury a little crazy. They wanted to help the family, but did not think anything was wrong with the bat. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. For example, cigarettes are not “defective” in that they perform properly, but they are “dangerous” in that they cause numerous health problems, illness and death. By the same token, the bats perform to all effective standards; however, they can be dangerous.

The problem with the ruling is that all participants in baseball games know of the inherent dangers and “assume the risk” of injury. In order to obviate this problem, we will have to include a short warning label on Anderson bats – something like: “Balls struck by this bat can reach speeds that may cause injury to players and spectators. Protective gear and caution should be used.”

If challenged I think this case will be overturned. The bat starts and stays within the rules for the life of the product. All of the risks are known.

With that said, the danger here is the “Chicken Little” effect when in fact diamond sports are, by comparison, very safe. Soccer, tennis and cheerleading each produce more injuries each year than both Baseball and Softball combined. The advent of aluminum bats did not change that.

Injury data has been kept on record at Little League International since the early 1960s. Since that time, there have been eight fatalities in the Little League program as a result of a batted ball. Six of those fatalities have come from wood bats and two from non-wood bats.

At present, injury data in all divisions of Little League Baseball and Softball shows there has been a 69 percent decrease in reported injuries to pitchers as a result of batted balls since 1992. This is, in part, a result of the BPF 1.15 requirement.

Statistically, you are fifty times more likely to sustain serious injury in the drive to the park than in any baseball or softball activity while you are there.

Aluminum bats were regulated out of play in New York high school play and the injury rate from batted balls did not drop and, in fact, remained constant while the total injury rate rose due to injuries sustained from broken wood bats. It should be noted that the introduction of the aluminum bat was originally heralded as a safety improvement to the game.

A 2007 study from the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research shows that there have been only 15 catastrophic batted ball injuries to pitchers out of more than 9,500,000 high school and college participants since 1982.

There is not a safety problem in baseball or softball. The “problem” that exists today is the same “problem” that existed in 1900. Appropriate safety equipment would solve it and allow the game to get faster in the same way the athletes and the training have gotten better.

The issue is an emotional one but the fact remains that there really isn’t much danger. I have kids too. They all play baseball. They also pitch.
Tumblebug
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:32 pm

by Skarp » Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:15 pm

Your annoying propensity to provide hard data has a chilling affect on the speculative argumentation (and accompanying vitriol, name calling, etc.) that most of us come to this site to engage in. I really wish you would knock it off.
There is no charge for awesomeness
...or attractiveness.
User avatar
Skarp
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Fastpitch Discussions