Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Media & Entertainment Law Blogs -> The Sports Law Professor

Media & Entertainment Law

: The Sports Law Professor

I Pine for Wood Bats

By Jeffrey Standen

I still love the feel of the wood bat in my hands, even if I only have a fungo bat for practice drills. The metal bats and the distinctive ping sound they produce can't match wood. With wood, everyone knows immediately how well the ball was struck; all metal hits sound the same. Yet all the tactile and aesthetic considerations don't override the primary consideration of today's Little Leaguer in purchasing a bat: the kids want the bat that will hit the ball the furthest. And in my mind there's no question about performance: today's manufactured metal bats, fashioned out of alloyed composite materials, hit the ball harder than does the traditional wood bat made from ash.

Some states have apparently banned metal bats from their youth baseball leagues, and other states are considering following suit. These bans have been encouraged by parent organizations that cite to several tragic injuries (usually to pitchers, the closest fielder to a batted ball) from hard-hit line drives off of metal bats. Needless to say, the bat manufacturers are displeased, claiming that no valid evidence demonstrates that metal bats form a safety risk.

Should metal bats be banned?

1. Here at TSLP Laboratories (research sponsored by TSLP Worldwide, Inc.), our scientists carefully followed the following protocol in our experiment to compare wood bats and metal bats. First, many decades ago (over four) we selected our human subject (call him "Little T"). He was a perfect test candidate, due to poor vision, modest athleticism, and a dream of playing for the Boston Red Sox. Little T was told to use a wood bat only throughout his little-league baseball career. Little T's every success was carefully remembered (the failures less so). We then followed Little T longitudinally, carefully noting his decision to father young boys with a deep love of baseball. Little T (now a bit bigger) was told (by the new baseball-loving boy T's) to purchase expensive metal bats for his boys to use in their youth baseball games. Little T was instructed to spectate at those games, no matter how long they took, and to observe closely every at-bat of the boy T's. Little T was charged then to measure mentally the differences, if any, between wood bats and metal bats. Our findings, soon to be published in dense numerical data form, can be summarized as follows: METAL BATS HIT THE BALL HARDER.

2. I saw a ten-year-old boy the other day "miss" on a ball, the pop-up carrying to center field. And carrying. Over the fence, 200 regulation feet away. I routinely see boys at this age stroke deep liners and long homers. I realize that heavy steroid doses and personal trainers have added some muscle mass to today's elementary school child, but still, the baseball is being hit harder and harder, even over the last few years. Maybe technique is better. But I'm betting the bats are better too.

3. Surely the bat manufacturers would agree that their bats are better than they were in previous years, and certainly better than decades ago. These bats better perform better: I've promised my kid a new one for next season, and worried talk among the fans in the stands is that it takes about $300 to get it done. (Research note: if the bat manufacturers want to send me some experimental bats for TSLP Junior to try out, I'll be happy to report on their success. TSLP is willing to pursue the truth no matter what the personal cost to my academic integrity.) For that kind of money, I want to see my kid flying balls over the wall too.

4. Here's what I can't figure out about the tester's conclusions finding that there is no difference between wood and metal bats. It may well be the case that a ball, when struck by a metal bat in its "sweet spot" or a wood bat in its sweet spot, comes off the bat at an identical velocity. But how often do batters, particularly in youth ball, square the ball at just the right spot? Not often. But here's the thing: everyone seems to agree that metal bats have a much larger sweet spot, and are, for their weight/length ratio, lighter than wood bats. What this means is that players swinging metal can use a larger bat (youth leagues vary in their restrictions on bat size), swing it harder, and hit the sweet spot more often, a lot more often, if the testing protocols described above prove up to scientific standards. So the game is changed, and clearly pitchers and other fielders are in danger, more often than they would be in a game with wood bats. Instead of one or two really squared hits in a game, with wood bats, we have that many each inning. Batters using metal can make contact with the pitch all over the bat, such as on the handle or toward its end, and still hit line drives. With a wood bat, hits on those spots would likely crack the bat, or at least sting the fingers, and usually result in an easy out. With metal bats? Well, I know of a coach who keeps batting statistics, and he claims his leading hitter (his son, it turns out!) is batting over .700. Even allowing for generous parental scoring, that's a lot of hits.

5. But banning metal bats may not be the only response to (what seems to me) an obvious case of the batted ball flying harder, and more often, than in the glory years of TSLP's youth. One only has to be in law school for about a week (a month, for some) to realize that it takes two to tort. If pitchers are in danger from metal bats, then instead of banning the bats maybe the pitcher's mound needs to be backed up some. When I see a team of 12-year old boys playing on a sixty-foot diamond (with the mound just a shade over 46 feet away), the diamond looks too small and the players too big. A diamond appropriate for 9's and 10's is too small for 12's. Of course no remedy is faultless; baseball has inherent dangers. One claimed advantage of metal bats is cost-savings; although the bats are pricey, they supposedly last longer (although I think their very thin walls are vulnerable to easy denting). Maybe that cost savings should be redirected into building larger diamonds. Maybe also younger players should be segregated from older ones.

6. There are undoubtedly good reasons, probably having to do with cost, space and available coaches, that nine and ten year-olds are often in the same league with 12's. (Also, given other children's interests, it's difficult to find enough kids to field competent teams at all levels.) For the better players, of any age, quick reflexes are usually enough to defend oneself. But dangers lurk: not just from metal bats, but from obvious deficiencies in player ability, bad hops from ill-kept infields, and the like. I don't have any data on this (TSLP Laboratories is limited to one experiment per lifetime), but I would bet many more injuries result from bad hops on grounders (often due to poorly maintained fields) than from hard-hit line drives. All of us have seen kids struck high on the body or the head from a bad hop on a hard-hit grounder, even in a practice setting. Should Little League ban bad fields? There is a rule against playing in "unsafe" field conditions, but any veteran of youth baseball knows that even decent fields are full of irregularities, "lips" on the edge of the grass, pebbles in the dirt, and the like. We're all just volunteers here, and maintaining even a decent field takes a lot of coordinated effort.

7. What's more, despite all of its claimed preference for safety, Little League in my mind continues to allow the most dangerous activity I've ever seen on a youth baseball field: coaches hitting grounders to players. Now I realize that this practice activity is totally necessary for player development and game preparation; but its necessity doesn't change the fact that it's dangerous. Some of these coaches, in an effort to "get them ready" for higher levels of play, or perhaps out of a touch of anger or sadism, hit their grounders quite hard. Boys get bruised, and we're lucky if it ends there. Should LL ban this activity also, or limit coaches to soft grounders? I guess the answer is no, yet having grown men rap hard ground balls directly at players standing on a typically uneven baseball field creates a clear danger of injury. Some teams or leagues have, in response, adopted rules requiring the wearing of fielding helmets equipped with face masks. These contraptions provide protection, but probably create bad fielding habits that, once the mask is removed at higher levels of play, reveal themselves. But I'm not against fielding headgear; but I do wonder if the cost (in terms of discomfort, etc.) is worth it. Mopeds would be popular if helmets weren't required. Make a kid take the mound in a helmet, face guard and heart guard, and do you think kids would be as excited to pitch? Maybe they'll just quit.

8. The other problem with legislative bans on any dangerous activity is that of data. Probably the most dangerous sports activity for children involves swimming in the backyard pool; perhaps routine exposure to the sun comes next. I would bet the odds of being catastrophically injured by a batted ball is very far down the list. So why should legislatures single out the particular danger of metal bats? Is it just a matter of whose injury or complaint manages to get itself political salience? Should we voters encourage our politicians to outlaw swimming pools, require big floppy hats, and so forth, until we get down the list to the metal bats issue? Now of course just because no state will ever outlaw swimming pools doesn't mean a state cannot address other, lesser dangers that are perhaps more susceptible to amelioration. But still, like swimming pools, metal bats do have their virtues: they are (supposedly) cheaper, and more importantly, they hit the ball harder! More fun for everyone. All dangerous activities have offsetting benefits: is the net effect of metal bats negative? Should we (or our legislatures) implicitly decide that the occasional grievous injury from a batted ball is a price "worth" paying so other kids can enjoy the fun of metal bats? (Obviously holding metal bat manufacturers liable for batted-ball injuries will drive the price of bats higher, meaning that those kids who get to enjoy the fun of metal will have to compensate those who are injured by that enjoyment.)

9. I guess we could start this on a smaller plane. I'm trying to talk TSLP Junior into opting for a wood bat when we make our pre-season bat purchase next spring. Appeals to the safety of others don't seem to appeal to him, nor does my nostalgic speeches on the hidden virtues of wood. So now I'm telling my ten-year-old boy that he needs to get used to wood bats ASAP so he's ready when the Red Sox call him up right out of middle school. The mounds aren't going to be moved back any time soon; nor will pitchers start wearing head gear and heart guards. So the lowest tech solution might be for a group of parents from just one team (preferably a good, winning one) to buy their kids wood bats and win games anyway.

Full post as published by The Sports Law Professor on July 11, 2007 (boomark / email).