Don't forget to Vote 756!

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by spark240

What are you talking about?

Babe Ruth...corked bats...

You realize Babe Ruth is the reason corked bats are against the rules, right?

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

You realize Babe Ruth is the reason corked bats are against the rules, right?

I thought it was because it supposedly gave you an edge at the plate. Oh well!

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

I thought it was because it supposedly gave you an edge at the plate. Oh well!

While I don't think there's really any evidence that they do, they weren't actually banned until Babe Ruth was repeatedly caught using them.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

While I don't think there's really any evidence that they do, they weren't actually banned until Babe Ruth was repeatedly caught using them.

A corked bat is much lighter. Much lighter bat, much faster bat speed.


I also see the "marked" ball won the vote. As it should have.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

A corked bat is much lighter. Much lighter bat, much faster bat speed.

But... you could just take a lighter wooden bat.

And toying with the integrity of the bat is never a good idea. Especially if you add material that absorbs energy - try throwing a ball at a wall of cork and a wall of wood, you'll see that the wooden ball makes the ball come back much faster.

[Jason Moyer]

Something I've always wondered is what would happen if you compared a regular bat to a larger corked bat with the same weight. AFAIK they typically just compare a corked and non-corked version of the same bat.

[Skipaway]

Maybe they can write something silly on the ball too. How about some profanity? Something like "Peter loves George"? Have Curt Schilling sign the ball?

It could be funny!

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

While I don't think there's really any evidence that they do, they weren't actually banned until Babe Ruth was repeatedly caught using them.

While, I do believe you, I have never heard of this before. Is there a place where I can find this on the internet.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Maybe they can write something silly on the ball too. How about some profanity? Something like "Peter loves George"? Have Curt Schilling sign the ball?

It could be funny!

An * is actually relevant, however.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

An * is actually relevant, however.

It is relevant when officially recognized.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Babe Ruth...corked bats...

You realize Babe Ruth is the reason corked bats are against the rules, right?

No. Where did you hear this?

Ruth was once found to have used a laminated bat, which was in violation of the rule (already in place) mandating that bats be a single piece of wood.

[Jason Moyer]

Found online, essentially similar to what has been printed in various books:

From The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, pg 784 :
" in 1983 a travelling Hillerich and Bradsby exhibit featured a Babe Ruth bat. According to Dan Gutman in In Ain't Cheatin' If you Don't Get Caught, the Seattle players were admiring the bat "when Dave Henderson noticed that the round end of the bat didn't exactly match the wood of the barrel. The end was cracked, but the rest of the bat was not.
" 'That's a plug!' said Henderson. 'This bat is corked'"
... As I see it nothing could be more typical of Ruth than to use a corked bat if he could get by with it. Ruth tested the limits of the rules constantly; this is what made him who he was."

Same book pg 686 notes that the American league issued a policy prohibiting "trick bats" in 1923 after the Babe was caught using one.

[Goodsox]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

A corked bat is much lighter. Much lighter bat, much faster bat speed.


I also see the "marked" ball won the vote. As it should have.

Mythbusters did a basebally myth episode about a month ago and did a very good job proving that a corked bat does nothing. I don't remember all of the details, but it was pretty definitive.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Goodsox

Mythbusters did a basebally myth episode about a month ago and did a very good job proving that a corked bat does nothing. I don't remember all of the details, but it was pretty definitive.

Tangotiger explored it before them. And, really, common sense is al one needs to figure it out .

[Goodsox]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Tangotiger explored it before them. And, really, common sense is al one needs to figure it out .

Totally agree Unfortunately, a lot of people still think it makes the ball go farther.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Goodsox

Mythbusters did a basebally myth episode about a month ago and did a very good job proving that a corked bat does nothing. I don't remember all of the details, but it was pretty definitive.

Ok, i've held a corked bat. Not many of us get the pleasure. A corked bat allows you to have a nice long, thick, light bat that you can swing through the strike zone. The same wooden bat would be much heavier. It has nothing to do with how balls bounce off cork as opposed to wood. It has to do with being lighter than wood so you can swing a large, otherwise very heavy bat at top velocity. And bat speed is everything. Provided you can hit the ball


So technically the bat itself does not cause the ball to go further. It's what you can do with it.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Something I've always wondered is what would happen if you compared a regular bat to a larger corked bat with the same weight. AFAIK they typically just compare a corked and non-corked version of the same bat.

It's not about that. Both will probably go just as far if given the time to swing through. But in most game cases, a corked bat will allow you to catch up to a pitch better than a heavier bat. You'll probably also be hitting the ball with a faster bat swing.

But if you're going to do a test with 60 mph pitches and swing each bat at the same speed, you'll get the same distance.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Found online, essentially similar to what has been printed in various books:

From The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, pg 784 :
" in 1983 a travelling Hillerich and Bradsby exhibit featured a Babe Ruth bat. According to Dan Gutman in In Ain't Cheatin' If you Don't Get Caught, the Seattle players were admiring the bat "when Dave Henderson noticed that the round end of the bat didn't exactly match the wood of the barrel. The end was cracked, but the rest of the bat was not.
" 'That's a plug!' said Henderson. 'This bat is corked'"
... As I see it nothing could be more typical of Ruth than to use a corked bat if he could get by with it. Ruth tested the limits of the rules constantly; this is what made him who he was."

I own the book, and didn't remember reading this. But okay, so Henderson basically seems to be making a joke. It seems that nobody tried to actually determine if what looked like a plug actually was, or if there was anything but wood inside. (I don't know if there's x-ray type technology which would be able to say definitively whether the bat is solid wood, but I suspect there is; I am not proposing sawing into an artifact like this.) Then James makes a supposition about what Ruth might have done.

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Same book pg 686 notes that the American league issued a policy prohibiting "trick bats" in 1923 after the Babe was caught using one.

Unfortunately I don't have the book handy, so I'm not sure what James says about the "policy," but the bat Ruth was found to be using in that case was the laminated one I mentioned earlier; that is, it was entirely composed of wood, just not one single solid piece of wood. The rule he was in violation dated to 1893. Bill Curran of thediamondangle.com characterizes the "policy" as a "reminder," which I think is more appropriate. (Interestingly, laminated bats were later allowed, sort of, after '27 and before '39, and then again since '54, provided that all the pieces of laminate are the same type of wood and the particular bat is approved by the rules committee. I'm not aware of anyone in recent times who takes advantage of this, or why they would want to.) Curran also mentions that, "Ruth and his laminated bat felt Johnson's wrath in part because at about the same time the Browns' Ken Williams was caught with what appeared to be a corked bat."

To sum up, Bill James may well be right about Ruth's character, but I don't see that we know that (a) Ruth ever used a corked bat, or (b) any nonstandard bat Ruth did use had anything to do with a rule change.

[Jason Moyer]

Here's what James says, which doesn't contradict what you said (it's in the article on Ken Williams, LF#50):

Ken Williams is the first player I know of to have used a corked bat. Apparently, if I'm reading the source material right, it wasn't strictly illegal when Williams did it, because it was unknown before then. American League President Ban Johnson in 1923 issues a policy prohibiting "trick bats" after Babe Ruth was caught using a bat which consisted of four pieces of wood glued together... (more stuff about Ken Williams and George Sisler using trick bats).