A condensed version of this article was originally published in Collegiate Baseball vol. 42, #2, January 22, 1999.

The authorities of collegiate baseball have been arguing and debating the aluminum vs. wood bat issue for far too long.  Despite the seemingly endless factors involved in the NCAA’s battle to redefine bat regulations, only one major hindrance truly exists: money.  It is this alone that has caused such a  struggle among college coaches, administrators, and NCAA executives.  However, rather than focusing on this first, one should examine the two problems college baseball currently faces resulting from the use of aluminum bats, and why a change is absolutely necessary.

1. The Safety of the Pitcher: Anyone who thinks that a pitcher’s safety is not a concern should have a baseball propelled at their head, at a speed of 115 miles an hour, from a distance of 54 feet.  (This is the approximate distance a  six-foot tall pitcher stands following the delivery of a pitch).  Although the odds that any pitcher would have a ball hit directly at his head are extremely small, it is a possibility, and it does happen.  No matter how one justifies the use of aluminum bats, it is an undeniable fact that aluminum bats increase the speed of a batted ball.  This places an unnecessary increase in danger potential for any pitcher who plays collegiate baseball.

Amherst College coach Bill Thurston has described today’s aluminum bats as “lethal weapons,” a term that some baseball men may scoff at.  This is, of course, a slight overstatement, as no collegiate pitcher has died as a result of a batted ball.  Is this what the NCAA, or any coach in opposition to the new regulations, is waiting for?  Is an aluminum bat-related death necessary to open the collective eyes of everyone involved in collegiate baseball?  If these safety-related facts and circumstances are not enough to convince people that change is positively crucial, then consider the second problem.

2. Collegiate Baseball Lacks a Balance of Pitching and Offense: The quality of collegiate pitching is another scapegoat used by the throngs of people wishing to continue the use of aluminum bats.  It has been said that too many top amateurs are signed to professional contracts, thus limiting college teams to a less than adequate assemblage of pitchers.  This argument denies the fact that many top hitters are signed, as well as ignoring how many multimillion dollar deals are turned down by pitchers wishing to compete in college.

Statistics exhibit all the evidence needed to prove the inflated offensive numbers aluminum brings to the game.  In comparing the stats of top college pitchers during the regular season vs. wooden bat summer leagues, ERA’s are much lower.  Batting averages of position players are far below the aluminum-powered averages posted during the college season, and home runs are hit at a more reasonable rate.

The critics of people who point to the absurd score of the final game of  last year’s College World Series say it was not reflective of the whole season.  Well, no kidding!  Thank heaven that not every game had a score that better reflected a football match rather than a baseball game.  But, in spite of the fact that the pitchers from the two best teams in the nation allowed a total of 35 runs, let’s focus on the season as a whole.  The simple truth is that offense in the NCAA Division I continued its climb at an unparalleled pace.  The average team batting average was .306, while the average team ERA was 6.12!  More home runs were hit than ever before, and nearly every offensive record was broken.  Most of the records that were broken eclipsed highs that were set merely one year previous.  A typical baseball game could easily feature both teams scoring in double-digits.

The new bat regulations would resume a more adequate standard of safety, and return the game to how it should be played: a battle of strategy.  But why would any supposed “baseball-people” be opposed to the new regulations?  The answer is simply money.  Jim Easton constantly tries to convince people that not using aluminum would be the wrong decision.  However, this is a position coming from a man who wants nothing more than to continue lining his pockets with the profit obtained from a dangerous (and overpriced) product.  NCAA coaches opposing the new bat regulations stand to lose a lot of money as well, as they are paid quite a decent amount to use and promote these bats.  The Easton Sports and Hillerich and Bradsby corporations have offered to cover any potential lawsuits against the colleges using their bats.  Does this sound like the action of a company primarily concerned with safety or money?  Jim Easton feels that a grave injustice has been done to the game of baseball.  No, that is not true.  The greatest harm that has been done is that aluminum bats were ever introduced to the game.  It is time for these bats to take their place alongside synthetic turf and symmetric stadiums, as regrettable elements of the game’s evolution best left in the past.

There are many components of the game that can take part of the blame in the out-of-control offense and increase in danger.  But rather than pointing fingers at all these problems, which is merely what Easton and other antagonists have done (when not busy denying the fact that any problems exist at all), changes should be made immediately.  Ridding baseball of the aluminum bat is the perfect place to start.

The speed of a batted ball will never be as controllable as some may wish it to be.  Baseball will always have a considerable amount of risks, as accidents will happen and injuries will occur.  However, the NCAA must once and for all iron out the problems associated with this issue and allot specific, unified regulations to all colleges across the country.  Then the world of college baseball will be able to finally divert from this controversy and return to what matters most: playing ball.

—

Note: This article was first published long ago, in January of 1999, just before the start of my freshman season as a pitcher for a Division I NCAA baseball team. Collegiate Baseball graciously published my article as a cover story (marking my first professional publication); however, Easton Sports was then — and probably remains today — a major advertiser with Collegiate Baseball. I believe that this is why the  editors of Collegiate Baseball omitted (without my prior knowledge or consultation) the major fruits of my research: that Easton Sports and Hillerich and Bradsby offered “to cover any potential lawsuits against the colleges using their bats.” All references to Jim Easton’s tireless bullshitting as to the “safety” of aluminum bats were removed. Easton’s lobbying has continued unabated, and 11 years later, the metal bat industry still has a stranglehold on youth, high school, and collegiate leagues.

However, two small changes took place in 1999: first, the bat barrel diameter for high school and collegiate bats was reduced from 2 3/4″ to 2 5/8″; secondly, the “weight drop” was reduced from minus 5 to minus 3 (meaning that a 34-inch bat can weigh no less than 31 ounces, whereas previously, under minus 5 standards, it could’ve weighed 29 ounces, therefore increasing bat speed and batted ball velocity). These rule changes were slight, but at least provided a starting point for incrementally improving the safety standards for the benefit of young pitchers.

Eleven years later, nothing more has been done, and the aluminum vs. wood bat debate rages on. The recent fuel to that fire (which prompted me to archive this article): this spring, California high school junior Gunnar Sandberg was nailed in the head by a line drive struck by a batter wielding — what else? — an Easton Stealth metal bat.

After falling into a three-week coma — in which a portion of his skull had to be removed to allow ample room for his swelling brain — Sandberg awoke, and is recuperating, despite significant losses in long- and short-term memory.The bat industry — which earned $201 million in 2010 (90 percent from sales of metal bats) — still claims that aluminum is safe, and had the gall to actually place blame with Sandberg while he still lay in a coma.

There isn’t much more that I can I say that I didn’t say 11 and a half years ago, but I can now emphasize my original point without the interference of an editorial team suffering from a severe conflict of interest:

There are inherent risks in playing any sport, and there will always exist that slim chance that severe injury (or even death) could occur in a baseball game solely utilizing wooden bats. But why significantly increase that risk by adding this extraneous element to the game?

Jim Easton, Tom Cove, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (SGMA), Daniel A. Russell, and everyone else who profit from the sale of aluminum bats are no better than the vilified pusher on the street corner: an interest in profit trumps the dangers that they bestow upon the buyer. It is worth it to the sellers to mortgage the safety of their buyers — and scramble the brains of a few Gunnar Sandbergs every now and them — for money.

More pointedly: they don’t give a flying fuck about you or the safety of your kids.

So, how much longer will this go on? Maybe I’ll check back with you in another 138 months. Between now and then, let’s hope common sense and care prevail over crass, corporate greed.

—Jackson Ellis, June 13, 2010