- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Coach Mainieri says LSU fans will hate the new "dead" bats
Posted on 10/20/10 at 11:39 am to jobare
Posted on 10/20/10 at 11:39 am to jobare
quote:
I can tell you that it is about time for the bat change
If they want to make changes in the interest of safety I have no problem with it, but the issue is that they may have gone overboard. You can not regulate all the danger out of being a pitcher. You see horrifying injuries in pro ball also.
quote:
it also has the side benefit of allowing pitchers to pitch inside more-- it makes the game closer to the pro game. While some may not like that, it does reduce one major argument that MLB uses when recruiting pitchers-- that pitchers dont learn to pitch inside and learn to establish a fastball in college.
That is just as much of a coaching issue as it is a bat issue. When the original changes were made after 98 the bats were much less forgiving to hitters and pitchers could effectively pitch inside.....if they were properly coached to do so. Many college coaches don't do it much because they say the bat will still make up for it, but they also don't want to put people on base. They don't trust their pitchers' command and don't want to hit people, and umpires in the college game generally give much more on the outside corner than they do on the inside.
0
Posted on 10/20/10 at 11:45 am to bmy
The reason you will never see NCAA switch to wood is the cost. Schools can not afford to keep supplying bats for as many get broken over the season. I don't know what the average cost is per bat, but you average about 3-4 broken ones a game. Compound that over every collegiate team needing bats and you have a severe shortage of wood to supply the bats.
As per breakage, that depends on the type of wood used. I believe that the preferred wood to use is Ash because it's so prevelant. Ash however is splinters much easier. A lot of guys in the majors are switching to Maple bats, but these are MUCH harder to make. They do last much longer as they are a sturdier wood.
I think it's disappointing that the NCAA keeps reducing the bats. I really didn't know there was a cause to do it after last year?
As per breakage, that depends on the type of wood used. I believe that the preferred wood to use is Ash because it's so prevelant. Ash however is splinters much easier. A lot of guys in the majors are switching to Maple bats, but these are MUCH harder to make. They do last much longer as they are a sturdier wood.
I think it's disappointing that the NCAA keeps reducing the bats. I really didn't know there was a cause to do it after last year?
Posted on 10/20/10 at 12:19 pm to Jester
quote:
The main change was not the pop of the bat. They reduced the bat from a 2-3/4 inch barrel to 2-5/8. They may have also reduced the allowable length minus weight (not sure what they call that).
The change from 2-3/4 inch to 2-5/8 definately changed the "pop" in the bat. They also changed the bats from -5 to -3.
Anyone who says that the "pop" didn't change after that, never used the bats before the change and then after. PERIOD
Posted on 10/20/10 at 12:26 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Subsequent rules reduced the weight of the bats which was intended to reduce the 'pop' of the bats.
They did not reduce the weight of the bats. They may have made changes to weight distribution, but they didn't reduce the weight. I'm pretty sure they actually increased the weight to reduce bat speed.
Posted on 10/20/10 at 12:27 pm to tigerfan1974
quote:
Since when has college ever used 2-3/4 bats. As far as I know it has always been 2-5/8.
Nope, the gorilla ball era was using 2-3/4 barrels.
Posted on 10/20/10 at 12:29 pm to hashtag
quote:
3 years in college
2.5 years in minor league
6.5 years in the majors
You?
None, I tore up my shoulder playing football in high school and quit playing baseball when it wasn't healing properly. I just wanted you to qualify your claims, which you did.
Posted on 10/20/10 at 12:35 pm to LafourcheTiger
Trust me going from swinging a 33in 28oz bat (-5) 2 3/4 barrel to
33in 30oz 2 5/8 makes a huge difference when you're talking about timing and tons of other factors.
33in 30oz 2 5/8 makes a huge difference when you're talking about timing and tons of other factors.
Posted on 10/20/10 at 12:37 pm to LafourcheTiger
quote:
The change from 2-3/4 inch to 2-5/8 definately changed the "pop" in the bat. They also changed the bats from -5 to -3.
Anyone who says that the "pop" didn't change after that, never used the bats before the change and then after. PERIOD
No, it really didn't. You have a much smaller barrel for contacting, but the bats still had pop. I used a 2-5/8, -3 in high school when the 2-3/4, -5 was the norm. I felt like my bat had just as much pop as any of the toy bats that were being used. In fact, I felt like the 2 added ounces was more forgiving when you missed the sweet spot, as you are carrying more momentum through the zone. Sure, the sweet spot was narrower, but they were able to extend it along the length of the bat. What you saw was more pop-ups and mole bashers because you couldn't miss as much.
Posted on 10/20/10 at 1:03 pm to Jester
[quote]felt like the 2 added ounces was more forgiving when you missed the sweet spot, as you are carrying more momentum [
Yes. It really did. How do I know? I was playing college baseball at the time of the bat change. Yeah, an extra 2oz will produce more mass through the strike zone, but you are also reducing bat speed. The difference in bat speed will affect the pop more than an extra 2oz of momentum any day. I have first hand knowledge of this, and also a history of statistics that backs this up. Also, the "sweet spot" you're talking about was GREATLY reduced, and it was NOT extended along the length of the bat like you say. Using you're reasoning there should have been an increase in offensive output/homeruns. Thats just not the case.
Yes. It really did. How do I know? I was playing college baseball at the time of the bat change. Yeah, an extra 2oz will produce more mass through the strike zone, but you are also reducing bat speed. The difference in bat speed will affect the pop more than an extra 2oz of momentum any day. I have first hand knowledge of this, and also a history of statistics that backs this up. Also, the "sweet spot" you're talking about was GREATLY reduced, and it was NOT extended along the length of the bat like you say. Using you're reasoning there should have been an increase in offensive output/homeruns. Thats just not the case.
Posted on 10/20/10 at 1:35 pm to LafourcheTiger
WOW!!! What a thread - Russian, how you kept your cool with that guy is beyond me...so props to you.
The first thing that came into my mind is last year's regional at UCLA when we should have bunted late in the game and Mainieri never called fo rthe bunt, rather letting the hitter swing away and it ended up backfiring on us. This was not at all meant as a flame at Mainieri, because I truly do love him as our coach, but does this bat change hurt us a little more than others because our coach has been reluctant to play small ball in the past?
The first thing that came into my mind is last year's regional at UCLA when we should have bunted late in the game and Mainieri never called fo rthe bunt, rather letting the hitter swing away and it ended up backfiring on us. This was not at all meant as a flame at Mainieri, because I truly do love him as our coach, but does this bat change hurt us a little more than others because our coach has been reluctant to play small ball in the past?
Posted on 10/20/10 at 1:52 pm to Herbstreit
quote:Mainieri actually mentioned that situation in his remarks last night at the meeting.
The first thing that came into my mind is last year's regional at UCLA when we should have bunted late in the game and Mainieri never called fo rthe bunt, rather letting the hitter swing away and it ended up backfiring on us.
He said when was introduced to the Tiger Stadium crowd at a football game this season he fully expected the crowd to start chanting, "YOU SHOULD HAVE BUNTED!!! YOU SHOULD HAVE BUNTED!!!"
He got quite a laugh from the audience when he said that. quote:I don't think so. PM spent quite a bit of time last night talking about adapting LSU's play to fit the new bats.
does this bat change hurt us a little more than others because our coach has been reluctant to play small ball in the past?
He said the current prospective lineup will be the fastest team he's had at LSU. He said the only "slow" starter will be Ty Ross, the catcher. But he said catchers are slow anyway, so......
He quipped that he told Ty Ross (who was in attendance last night so PM was not talking about him behind his back) that Ross would "come in third in a race with a pregnant woman."
Posted on 10/20/10 at 2:32 pm to LafourcheTiger
quote:
Yes. It really did. How do I know? I was playing college baseball at the time of the bat change. Yeah, an extra 2oz will produce more mass through the strike zone, but you are also reducing bat speed. The difference in bat speed will affect the pop more than an extra 2oz of momentum any day. I have first hand knowledge of this, and also a history of statistics that backs this up. Also, the "sweet spot" you're talking about was GREATLY reduced, and it was NOT extended along the length of the bat like you say. Using you're reasoning there should have been an increase in offensive output/homeruns. Thats just not the case.
Okay, you are not saying anything except your personal opinion on this matter. Do you really believe that extra 2 ounces reduces bat speed by 7%? I highly doubt it. That's still a VERY light bat compared to wood and the pros are still able to generate bat speed.
Now my 7% claim assumes that the added weight is distributed evenly across the center of mass (should be about where the sweet spot is). I'd feel fairly comfortable with that assumption.
As for your argument for an increase in home runs, did you read my entire statement? You extend the sweet spot by having a larger mass (more weight around center of mass results in wider stability). However, the sweet spot will also be greatly narrowed by the reduction in diameter (more than 1/8 inch).
You don't need to hit along the lateral sweet spot for the ball to go out. I've seen those bats put a ball out close to the end of the bat. However, the tangential contact becomes more exaggerated with the smaller diameter, thus a lot of balls that were home runs before are popups with the smaller bat. The bat's spring constant could be the same, but the normal force is greatly reduced. Thus it will seem to have less pop.
The "pop" is nothing more than the bats spring constant normal to the barrel. I wish I had a lab and could quantify all of this for you, but alas. Playing baseball does not make you an expert on bat science.
This post was edited on 10/20/10 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 10/20/10 at 3:07 pm to LSURussian
HAHA! That's pretty funny...Russian, you seem to follow LSU baseball pretty closely and seem to have a good feel for Mainieri and his style. Do you think looking back on it now he realizes that eh should have bunted? Or do you think he still thinks he made the right call?
Just curious, because if that call was still on his mind 3 months after it happened then just maybe that no bunt call has stuck with him a little bit
Just curious, because if that call was still on his mind 3 months after it happened then just maybe that no bunt call has stuck with him a little bit
Posted on 10/20/10 at 4:58 pm to Herbstreit
quote:He said last night in hindsight he wishes now he had called for the bunt. He said he was hoping for a big inning that didn't happen.
Do you think looking back on it now he realizes that eh should have bunted? Or do you think he still thinks he made the right call?
quote:I've had a couple somewhat relaxed conversations with him and it's amazing what he remembers about a game. He can recall game situations, what he called for and what happened in a game that took place two seasons ago.
because if that call was still on his mind 3 months after it happened then just maybe that no bunt call has stuck with him a little bit
Baseball consumes him. He's not a Saban type personality, but he is absorbed by his sport.
For example, last night, as I wrote earlier, he asked for fans to give him suggestions on what would make their game experience better.
He separated the suggestions into two piles: one for suggestions he has no control over (like four laning the road in front of the Box) and another pile for suggestions he is going to work on before next season.
He said he would report the progress he's made on the doable suggestions at the next meeting.
Can you imagine Smoke Laval asking the fans for suggestions?
This post was edited on 10/20/10 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 10/20/10 at 5:01 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Can you imagine Smoke Laval asking the fans for suggestions?
Wad dere anthing I do make budder?
As much as Miles says off the wall, ridiculous things, at least you can understand the guy. Smoke always seemed to have a mouth full of marshmallows.
Posted on 10/20/10 at 5:17 pm to Jester
quote:That was frustrating, but to me the most frustrating aspect of Laval's personality was his LACK of communication.
Smoke always seemed to have a mouth full of marshmallows.
You could walk up next to him, stand there for a few minutes and if you did not start the conversation, he would just look away and never acknowledge your presence.
I did that once at a Coaches Committee meeting. I saw him standing by himself (of course) and I walked up to him and stood about 3 feet from him looking at him. After about 3 minutes with him avoiding looking at me I said, "Nice talking with you, coach" and walked away.
That was the last Coaches Committee meeting I went to while he was head coach, and that was the season before he was fired.
He just would not talk to anyone. He viewed fans as a necessary evil which he had to tolerate.
Posted on 10/20/10 at 5:23 pm to LSURussian
I was never so blessed as to meet him in person, but I could certainly imagine that. The only person associated with LSU that I ever met and will for the rest of my life think is a total prick was General Richard. It was all I could do not to return the hostile attitude.
Posted on 10/20/10 at 5:29 pm to LSURussian
I am not happy about this change.
Im sure Texas loves it.
Im sure Texas loves it.
Posted on 10/20/10 at 5:34 pm to bbap
quote:
Im sure Texas loves it.
As a matter of fact, Augie is going out tonight to celebrate.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News