Since the MLB was helping out (someone said one of their people was on the show) perhaps they just didn’t want to give the impression that MLB condoned corking bats, or that their guy knew how or something like that.
Eh, like I said in another post, the fact that a stance is ludicrous has no bearing whatever on whether MLB is likely to try to take it – mendacity’s a way of life for Bud and Bob, from what I’ve seen. And whether Discovery Channel, or Beyond Productions, would defy it or just shrug it off and work with it would depend on any number of factors beyond the legal merits.
The batter/runner is allowed to overrun first base without being vulnerable to being tagged out, as long as he stays in foul territory. This way, the runner can sprint full speed in a straight line without having to worry about stopping. This is, if the runner couldn’t overrun first, they’d either have to run slowly enough they could stop on a diem, or they’d have to slide/dive on every grounder in the infield, and injuries would occur daily.
Why does it have to be so complicated?
MLB asked them not to show how to cork a bat, and Mythbusters decided it wasn’t worth arguing about, so they didn’t show how to cork a bat. They did it just because they wanted to keep the suits over at MLB sweet. If they get MLB’s cooperation with the show, they get a better show. Sure, Jaime and Adam could rig up some corked bats and a pitching machine and do some tests in their back yard, but if they get to film at a MLB ballpark, and interview MLB experts it’s a better show. It’s co-branding, MLB gets an eentsy publicity boost from the Mythbusters show, and Mythbusters gets a publicity boost from the cooperation of MLB. Why exactly do you think they’ve done so many “Hollywood Movie Myth” shows?
I think it is just a case of MLB asking them and Mythbusters going along, why burn that bridge, after all.
I too wonder if MLB would have bent over backwards to help if the results had shown corked bats do hit the ball farther.
The show wasn’t about how to cork your bat, just what the effects are. Saves some valuable air time for showing the wonderfull testing process.
Not showing the corking process didn’t effect the results of their tests, unless you contend that they somehow messed up the corking process.
So agreeing to a MLB request in this fasion seems like a “no biggie” to me…
OT: Did they at least blow a bat up in a spetacular manner?
Adam: “Ok. We proved, I think, that a human cannot swing the bat at sufficient speeds to see any meaningful difference in performance based on the slight change of the interior properties of the bat. But what if… what if we rigged up a machine to swing the bat at 1600 mph!!??”
Jaimie: “I agree. And I think this calls for the return of the frozen chicken cannon!”
Can anyone answer this? This is also what I understood about corking bats. It’s not about getting someone with warning track power to hit one over the fence. It’s about bat speed and being able to hit the ball.
The point of corking a bat isn’t to gain additional springiness or to gain additional bat speed, it’s to give the batter additional control so that he can make better contact with the ball.
I thought that the goal was to produce a large bat that was light enough to be controlled by the batter. Something like the tennis rackets with a larger head and sweet spot.
That was pretty much what they did during the segment of the show devoted to discovering whether it was possible to “knock the cover” off a ball. They ended up shotting the ball at 700+ MPH at a bat before they got it to happen. Very entertaining.
As far as MB being “accountable” to MLB, I just figured it was a common courtesy to abide by a reasonable request.
RR
This is what I consider the Big Stink about this segment. The Mythbusters regularly screw up things and then come to conclusions based on these screw ups. (E.g., the salami rocket and the followup.)
I strongly suspect they did not “properly” cork the bat and did other things wrong. Given the disclaimer, this inclines one to believe that they weren’t really interested in doing a proper test.
(In addition to hiding how they corked the bat, they also didn’t try hitting the ball off different parts of the bat. I can believe a corked bat has a “dead spot”. But what about other areas?)
So if corking doesn’t give an advantage, why is there a rule against it?
It’s not that there’s a rule against corking specifically; I believe the rules just state that bats must be solid wood.
I’ve never played baseball past the sandlot level. From a force-transfer angle, I figure the best juiced bat would have a chamber only half filled with lead shot, like a dead-blow hammer. That way, in the fraction of a second the bat is in contact with the ball, and the ball is slightly flattened on the bat face, the lead shot would add another slam to the original impact.
Except that they did neither. They did most of their outdoor tests at a minor-league ballpark (or maybe it was a college ballpark). The only person on the show connected with MLB was Roger Clemens, and he wore a generic jersey, and his team’s name was never mentioned.
It’s quite possible that he didn’t have a team at the time of filming. I’m pretty sure he was re-retired last off season.
The park was San Jose’s Municipal Stadium, home of the Class A San Jose Giants & the San Jose State baseball team.
When was the segment filmed? Roger Clemens was not signed to any team between October and May, as far as I know.
And I think it’s highly unlikely that corking reduces the speed the ball comes off the bat by half. That just doesn’t make any sense. It would not take too many batting practice pitches before the hitter realized how much worse it was.
I can buy that it reduces the speed a little, but not anywhere near half.
Nitpick: The runner is allowed to overrun first base as long as he does not turn towards second. Watch the runner next time you see this – he will turn to the right when overrunning. If he does not, he is considered to be “rounding first” and is liable to be put out.
Fair or foul territory does not enter into the equation, really.