re: The "New" Bats: Do you enjoy baseball more now than before??

I think the reasons behind the bat change were bogus and maybe they went too far with the changes. However, I think it adds more strategy to the game. You have to manufacture runs now where you used to be able to just send your gorilla to the plate and tell him to swing away. I know most people like to see offense but if it gets too one-sided then I think you start to lose the essential nature of baseball.

Ruined the game!

We may as well switch to wood bats. If we are gonna take it this far we may as well go all the way. This has hurt the game of high school and college baseball in my opinion. If it wasn't so expensive most teams should start moving in their fences.

No, most definitely not. While I loved the bats of the 90's and gorilla ball, it was just so much fun and excitement at times, I realize they did diminish the game a little too much and removed the emphasis of other facets of the game, in particular strategy. With that said, I agree with most on here that the NCAA has gone way too far with the news bats and their cores. I would like to see it somewhere in between the two extremes, probably closer to the more watered down versions we are using now, but not nearly as dull and tiny of sweet spots as the current bats. Essentially, I agree with the points of the majority who have posted in this thread thus far. I love great pitching, defense and the utilization of well planned and executed strategy, but I am still a huge fan of the potential to score big at any time, to a certain extent. I think the new bats have eliminated the latter of these aspects, and I am not a fan nor do I approve (not that my opinion means shitake, obviously). I think they need to reverse their decision to utilize the current bats, and beef them back up a touch. The potential for big offensive outtings is what makes collegiate baseball so exciting, and that is all but gone.

quote:

---

It selects for big overweight unathletic kids that just can stand there and crush the ball.

---

You hit the nail on the head about that as per youth travel ball. To me, there is a total disconnect in the USA about coordinating the game as it pertains to player development and keeping the game consistent across all levels, from the MLB to college to HS to youth ball.

That's why I think the answer is to look at the MLB and from a summmary standpoint, try to make the bat formulas fit the MLB homer to at bat ratios all the way down to youth baseball. It should be around two homers per 9 innings for both teams. That would provide enough excitement on any level, while not having a slugfest.

You are so right, go to any 12 and under tournament and the super live bats they are using coupled with overweight kids...some are hitting homers like every other at bat with the 200ft fences. If any level needed dumbed down bats, it's 12 and under. This would teach kids how to hit for average, and also keep the ball in play more helping out defensive work.

It's all about balance, and providing the option of ALL tools of the game. I maintain that ball over the fence is a powerful dynamic because it cannot be defended by a position player. If a pitcher doesn't have to worry about the long ball anymore, than changes the whole dynamic of the game that began with Babe Ruth in modern times. (btw, in the 1920s, it was the long ball that allowed the Yankees to call their new, huge stadium "The House that Ruth Built", so I rest my case)

A few doesn't bother me. 1st and 3rd basemen are generally big. When nearly every player on the field is overweight, that isn't baseball to me.

quote:

---

A few doesn't bother me

---

What was the last season when LSU had more than one big overweight hitter. The last one I can think of was Kyle Koeneman, and he had what, three at bats on the season?

I'd like to see the college average of homeers a little over one and a half a game.