What do you guys make of this new-found love for maple bats instead of
traditional ash? It seems there's a huge problem with the maple bats exploding
and becoming dangerous projectiles:
This isn't completely different than my experience with maple drum sticks;
unless the sticks are made from absolutely STRAIGHT grain that runs from one
end of the stick to the other, you can almost bet the sucker is going to pop in
half. I don't use 'em; strictly hickory for me.
From the pictures in that article it appears to me that the bat in question
was NOT constructed from straight grain lumber. Don't you think somebody in
the bat making industry would have noticed this by now and made it a selling
point and part of their quality control? Or do you think those suckers would
explode regardless of grain direction?
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
Although hickory was used at the beginning of the 20th century,
hitters today prefer lighter bats. The maple bats came into vogue
because hitters like Barry Bonds put up good numbers with them, but
they often break in dangerous ways. I do not think cost is a factor
at all for major league hitters.
Jeff Thomson recorded at 99.8 mph
Cricket bowling machines used in practice are rated up to 95mph
The only reports I have heard of a cricket bat breaking were in more
recent times when they were trying out different materials and laminates.
That's very good but one must remember that a cricket ball is heavier.
A Cricket ball must weigh between 155.9 and 163g. The mean of which is
A Baseball ball weighs between 142 and 149g. The mean of which is 145.5g
The damage caused by any projectile depends on its energy which is given
by the simple formula E=1/2mass x Velocity squared.
A cricket ball travelling at 99.8mph (4461 cm/s)
has an energy of 1586569037 erg
On the other hand, a baseball ball travelling at 103mph (4604 cm/s)
has an energy of 1542068364 erg.
There may not be a lot in it but the cricket ball is therfore capable of
doing more damage.
I would therefore assert that willow is just as viable for Baseball bats
as your traditional ash.
I'm agreeing with that. I'm just agreeing with the mph thing.
In any case, isn't a cricket bat flat? That has to play into the equation.
I'm also curious about the density of willow compared to ash/maple.
Also, how much wood is there in each bat? Like how much volume?
What I'm getting to is would willow be too heavy for a baseball bat...
or too light, for that matter. There's an equation for baseball that
goes something along the lines of each ounce added to the weight of the
bat at the same speed of swing adds X distance to the ball's travel.
Each mph of bat speed for the same weight bat adds X distance to the
ball's travel. So the quandary left to the baseball batter is whether he
can swing a heavier bat fast enough to make up the difference in speed
lost to the lighter bat.
The trend has seemed to go to the favor of lighter bats to get faster
bat speed. Babe Ruth and other prolific hitters of his time used very
heavy bats, well over 40oz. If you see old footage of Babe Ruth's swing,
you can see that bat speed wasn't of much concern to him. :-) He sort of
flicked the bat out and caught the ball at the apex of his swing,
allowing the trampoline effect of the wood's flex to transfer all that
mass to the ball.
Home run hitter of today are only concerned with bat speed. They will us
a 32 oz bat and let bat speed do the work.
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
It's about 50 years since I last had a cricket bat in my hands.
The face of the bat is sort of flat but has a slight curve to it in
section. It's also basically triangular in section. It thickens towards
the end away from the handle.
Any pro cricketer will have a bat made to his own requirements, its length
will depend on his height for a start, so it's impossible to say how much
wood might be used.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.