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. One bat breaking into multiple pieces is one too many. At a supposed 50% reduction as they claim, there would be well over 1,000 bats potentially injuring players and fans… and that’s just in MLB.
Show me the stats, show me the numbers…
Jason: OK, but that sounds awfully “conspiracy theory” for me. I agree, bats continue to shatter and helicoptor around the park and I remain more than concerned, too. Won’t this rule help, even a little bit? Also, has BatGlove gone through any additional testing, approval hurdles since we last spoke? What is MLB’s formal (and informal) stance on this? Are we any closer to seeing an end to the flying bats?
Phil: We’ve gone through four rounds of tests with a 100% containment on multi-piece failures. (the last test was conducted without us being present) MLB said even if we test another 200+ bats with 100% containment they would not guarantee that it would be used. They don’t want us on the field. Will the new changes concerning low density maple help? Let’s see what the 2012 season brings. The wolf guarding the chicken-coop…