A bit more about the new rule regarding maple bats

Wendy Thurm: Can you tell me how the rule came about (i.e., was it a compromise between owners and players, what other changes were considered)?

Jason@IIATMS: Nearly everything in the CBA represents a compromise of some sort. Heck, if one side wanted to mandate that the sun rises in the East, the other side would try to negotiate that away. I am sure it was the only compromise the MLB, MLBPA, USDA, and equipment manufacturers could come up with to show due diligence in an attempt to improve or search for a solution.

As for the exact circumstances of the genesis of the rule change, I am not sure, but certainly this is an issue of importance for MLB. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this is mostly cosmetic to show us that they are trying to do something about the problem. However, I don’t believe it is enough. The Tyler Colvin incident could have been worse, far worse, and it just might take that worst case scenario to occur (to a fan or a player) to really get this problem fixed.… Click here to read the rest

A bit about the new CBA rule about maple bats

Jason: What’s your official, on-the-record stance on the new CBA rules about maple bats and your thoughts if the new limits on low-density wood have a material impact on the # of instances?

Phil: I do not feel that outlawing “low-density” maple will solve the problem of injuries on and off the field. It’s obvious that bats are still breaking at an alarming rate as cited by numerous players, yet upper management says it’s reduced breakage by fifty percent. Where are the statistics and numbers? Are we supposed to “blindly” believe that everything is under control? I believe my own eyes and see just as many broken bats fly into the stands and on the field as they have in the past. The only thing that has changed is that they have muzzled the announcers from talking about it and do not show the bats going in the stands after they break during game-play. This propaganda tactic can only last for so long until there is a death on the field or in the stands.

Click here to read the rest

Additional chatter on the maple bats and a possible solution

So what is this report that Mr. Rauso is referencing?  You can read it here: Lowell Report 12_15_09

I’ll give you the pieces of bread below, but the sandwich is best made with the details and bat-breaking pictures contained in the report:


A baseball bat durability study was performed at the UMass Lowell Baseball Research Center for The Bat Glove, Inc. The Bat Glove, Inc. developed a baseball bat reinforcement system that consists of a thin polymeric film applied around the taper region of the bat and promotes its system as a potential remedy to the reduce the number of bat pieces that separate and fly from the batter’s box. The purpose of this study was to examine a selection of nearly identical bats, half as produced (no bat reinforcement) and half with the polymeric-film reinforcement applied. The bats were tested in matched pairs, one with and one without the film using the same procedure. High-speed video was utilized to make visual comparisons regarding the break severity between maple bats with and without the application of the polymeric film.Click here to read the rest

Finally! Maple bats face ban

We’ve been on this subject for quite a while, as you can see below:

Of course, there is another solution that seems to make some sense to me, and also seems to conform to MLB rules and regulations. It’s called The Bat Glove and according to their site:

Keeping the integrity of a solid wood bat unchanged yet making it less prone to shattering has been a solution that many people have been searching for. The brilliant thing about this invention is that it’s transparent to the eye, lighter than paper, and best of all the players hands never even touch it.

  1. MLB allows any type of adhesive tape or pine tar to be placed on a bat for the purposes of grip.
Click here to read the rest