Metal bats outlawed in Mass.?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/Massachusetts/articles/2006/08/24/youth_bat_debate_steps_up_to_plate/


Two of the towns I cover have already switched to wood bats at the Major (11-12) level. We've debated the wood vs. aluminum issue before, but what I'm mostly wondering about is if state governments have any business getting involved in these things. This is the same legislature that considered a bill that would have required youth and high school soccer players to wear helmets.
If I were the legislature, I'd be a little more worried about gun violence in Boston and the safety of the Big Dig tunnels, but that's just me.

 

I'm pro wood bats, but the state Leg. has no business getting involved.

 

I guess if the legislature feels kids are being put at an unneccesary risk, they have every reason to. Like you, I'm for the wood bat transition.
Not saying I have a position, yet, but just like actually fining underage kids for smoking or not wearing seat belts, it needs to be talked about.

 

I don't think metal bats represent that much of risk to children. The parents should make the decision whether metal bats are too dangerous for their children to play with.
I just don't think it's an issue for legislation.
But I think wood bats are the way to go.

 

The link did not work for me but I think the gist is that a HS pitcher was almost killed last year off a shot from a metal bat (are they really still aluminum?). Public HS get state money and some of that money goes into sports. The MIAA is a state run organization. So I guess it is not unreasonable for the state to have a say on how the money is spent and how the rules are set.

The HS team that had the pitcher almost killed gave up metal bats as did the rest of their league. The problem becomes when it comes to state tourney time - the teams who ditched the metal bats are at a disadvantage. It becomes a level playing field question.

I have no problem with it which is unusual because normally I'm very anti Nanny State laws.

 

Do they really need to eradicate all metal bats or just the composite ones that resemble rocket launchers?

 

In this case, they're talking about youth leagues, specifically the 11-12 age group, not high schools. One of the claims is that because of the smaller diamond, the risk is even greater.

 

If it is youth leagues like Little League or Babe Ruth - then I say that the state has no business poking its nose in.

 

funny thing was in the beginning a lot of places went to metal bats because it was cheaper -- they wouldn't break and therefore you didn't have to replace them. now you can get 6 or 7 wood bats for the price of a metal one

hell, i'd be ok with a constitutional amendment banning metal bats (with a rider to eliminate the dh)

 

Not only are metal bats more expensive now, but metal bats need to be replaced constantly (at the college level, at least). They dent within a week or two of regular use.

I've always thought Major League Baseball should fund wooden bats for lower leagues, which are all, in a sense, ultimately developmental leagues for MLB. Scouts would see early how a kid looks swinging a wooden bat instead of waiting until he's in the minors (or six weeks in Cape Cod). Kids would get used to them sooner and not have to re-learn how to hit later in life.

The pros wreak havoc with college recruiting classes too. I'm sure a few hotshots will sign Monday or Tuesday instead of going to biology class, turning pro and forcing the college they signed with to fill a roster spot long after most of the talent pool is spoken for.

There are holes in my argument, of course, plus one more variable: The metal bat lobby is almost as powerful as the tobacco lobby.

 

The state has no business in what appears to me to be a public health issue?
I'm not asking for a snarkfest. I'd just like a further explanation of this theory of the limitations of government action in private enterprise.

 

You gotta admit, requiring soccer players to wear helmets is just plain silly.