The Great Bat Debate

You thought I would let the Chimpanzee Rodeo die? I didn't find that monkey riding a dog for nothing, folks.

Anyway, I just wanted to pass along this Kansas City Star article (ed. note: Starticle?) comparing the merits of a pair of baseball bat materials.

Ash v. Maple. Let's get it on.

As New Englander and fan of syrup, I was saddened by the results.

Smith said ash likes to grow in a long straight grain, which is fairly easy to see. So if you look at a piece of ash, it’s evident if the grain is parallel to the length of the board.

“That’s what you want to have,” said [Washington State University Sports Science Lab' Lloyd] Smith, who is with the school of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. “That’s where the strength is. If your grain is not parallel then you’ve introduced a weakness in the material.”

However, maple generally does not like to grow in a straight grain. Also, the grain doesn’t have as much contrast, so it doesn’t stand out as much as ash.

This is important, because it makes it easier to detect a crack in an ash bat.

This is a great example of a unique and interesting sports story. And the Star uses the internet to its advantage with a nice graphic to accompany the piece. 

It's too bad the text on the graphic is barely legible, even when the picture is enlarged.

Finally, the article answers the obvious question: If ash is better, why is maple the popular choice among major leaguers.

Blame it on Barry Bonds. Smith estimated that about 5 percent of baseball players used maple bats before Bonds broke the single-season home run record in 2001.

“There’s much more superstition in baseball than there is science,” Smith said, “so people started saying, ‘Aha, here’s the magic formula. It’s not Barry Bonds, it’s maple.’”

Of course, we all know it's not maple. It's the steroids.

Goodbye Nick Adenhart

I remember reading a Bill Simmons article that discussed the quirkiness of the conversations held by announcers during baseball games.

His thesis, as best I remember, was basically to point out that the conversation is always oddly interrupted by the flow of the game. Balls and strikes, batted balls, etc.

It creates an odd flow — an anti-flow really — that is unique to baseball. I thought of that when I read this transcription from former deadspin editor Will Leitch.

It's the Dodger's Vin Scully on Adenhardt.

And if there is one thing I’ve learned in all my years — and I haven’t learned much — but the one thing I’ve learned: Don’t even waste your time trying to figure out life.

Ground ball through for Andre Ethier, and life continues for those who still have it. And with a leadoff single, Russell Martin will be coming up.

But I would say, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to take a moment and say a prayer in memory for Nick, especially for his parents. What a shock to lose a twenty-two-year-old.

Andre Ethier at first base, Russell Martin the batter, James Loney on deck, and the Dodgers try to strike in the second inning against Kevin Correia.

Leitch calls it simple baseball poetry. But it seems inappropriate to me. 

Or maybe the line, "Groundball through for Andre Ethier, and life continues for those who still have it," just seems a little callous.

What do you guys think?