On the subject of corking… if I recall correctly, Robert K. Adair, in The Physics of Baseball, which they really should have read before doing the episode, analyzed corking. His conclusion was that the primary positive effect was to lower the weight of the bat, resulting in faster swing speed, which was somewhat offset by the lower coefficient of restitution of the bat with the cork in it.
I think the problem with the Mythbusters setup may have been that they were holding the speed of the swing constant rather than the force imparted to the bat – in the latter case you’d expect the lighter corked bat to be moving faster, which would change the speed at which the ball came off the bat.
One think that Adair found was that the change in bat weight was about what could be achieved by “cupping” the end of the bat – that is, having the end of the bat be concave instead of convex. This is legal.
Nitpick the nitpick: The runner may overrun first base as long as in the umpire’s judgement he does not “attempt to advance” to second base. He can turn to his left and come back to first without being liable to be put out. But if he takes one step towards second and then thinks better of it, then he is fair game…
I’d find it surprising that MLB would prevent the Discovery Channel from showing how to do it when ESPN, which holds an MLB broadcasting contract, let Buck Showalter show everyone how to cork a bat on “Baseball Tonight” a few years ago.
Baseball novice here. Why is this? Having made a home run it is legal in the rules to attempt to make a second run off the same pitch? I thought having made home you were essentially out.
Then, as they said on the show- you can just choose a lighter bat. They come in several weights, including those that would be as light as the oz or two you’d lose by corking.
Either I’m really tired, or this is quite possibly the most confusing question ever posted on the SDMB.
I’m rather unclear what you’re asking, but the rule being discussed is about running to first base, not performing a home run (circumnavigating all the bases.) The rule is, when running to first, after you touch the base, you are considered to be “on” the base (safe) if you continue running straight, as long as you don’t turn towards second base. This rule does not apply to second base, third base, or home plate, which is why players often slide into those positions.
In baseball you start at “home”, where you bat, then to score a “run” you must advance around the diamond, 1st to 2nd to 3rd to home. a “home run” is when a hitter hits the ball over the fence, or in a spot in play that alows him enough time to run around the diamond. otherwise “runs” are usually scored more slowly, with hitters only making it one or 2 bases at a time, then making it “home” when another hitter hits the ball. but but no points are scored for a hitter making it to 1st 2nd or 3rd base, if he doesnt make it home before 3 outs are recorded. (A hitter who is tagged with the ball by a fielder is “out” if he is tagged while between bases, though there are also other ways to record an out)
Its cricket where runs are awarded for reaching each base i think.
the reason why hitters are allowed to run past 1st base only is that if they weren’t allowed to do this, it would be too easy to throw out a hitter at 1st base if he hit a ball to an infielder on the ground. As it is, many times a fast runner can beat the ball to first base if the infielder hesitates or does not make a strong throw. Im guessing not being able to overrun first base would force runners to slow down, resulting in much more mundane infield play
The biomechanics of hitting a baseball are complicated enough that I doubt one can reach a definitive answer using only machinery. I’d like to see a test of corked versus uncorked bats used by human batters. I don’t see any way to make the test double-blind (or even single-blind), since the batters would presumably be able to tell the difference between the bats. One possible way around this would be to have a kind of home run derby using both types of bats, and to give batters a monetary reward for each home run they hit regardless of whether the bat was corked. The reward would have to be high enough to give the batters real incentive to hit as many homers as possible. It might be best to use college or minor league players to keep the cost down.
I notice that Askance is from Oz, and is presumably more familiar with cricket. In that fine game the batters, er batsmen, can continue to run between the bases, er wickets, and run up the score for as long as they deem prudent.
Now in baseball, the term out has a very specialized meaning (actually similar to cricket, come to think of it). The opposite of out is safe. A runner is either safe on base or out. A runner scores if he makes it safely to home plate. By safely, that means he is not out. If he were out, then he wouldn’t have scored. In either case, safe or out at home base (but not at the other bases), the runner is retired from that play. You can’t continue to run around the bases once you make it to home plate.
As a simpler (and cheaper) alternative, they could just ask a baseball player to swing both the regular and corked bats, to see if the corked bat can be swung faster. The swinging rig could then be set to a faster speed for the corked bat.
Now that I think about, the increase in swing speed really is a major factor that the Mythbusters overlooked. Force = mass*velocity. Corking reduces mass, and thus would tend to pull down the force the bat can impart, but if the bat can be swung faster, that would offset the loss. Whether it can be swung fast enough to overcome the loss of mass is a legitimate question.
This is the answer to the corking question. The MB guys must not have played or read much about baseball. I can’t believe that MB screwed it up that bad.
In addition, the idea is to get a bigger barrelled bat that will have a larger sweet spot. With the lighter weight, the batter can get the bat around with more speed. The speed at which the bat contacts the ball is just as important as the mass of the bat. That’s why players don’t use bats that are huge or too heavy. They can’t get the bat speed necessary to drive the ball with a bat that’s too heavy. This is particularly important when trying to hit the fastball coming in at 93 miles and hour. If you can’t get the bat around you aren’t going to get any hits.
As explained, cupping was developed as a design to gain the effect of corking while staying within the rules.
Nitpick to last sentence - the runner can overrun home plate, as long as he touches the base. As soon as he does so, a run scores and he is no longer a baserunner at all, and cannot be put out.
The reason you see lots of slides at home is that the play at home is often not a force out, so the catcher has to tag the runner, and not just touch the base. If the runner slides, it’s harder for the catcher to catch the throw in from a fielder, turn around, and tag him. In fact, if the runner (or 3rd base coach) screwed up and the catcher is waiting for the runner at the plate with the ball, the runner will sometimes not slide and simply run into the catcher as hard as he can, in an attempt to make him drop the ball.
I hate to repeat myself but “Then, as they said on the show- you can just choose a lighter bat. They come in several weights, including those that would be as light as the oz or two you’d lose by corking.”
A corked bat cannot be swung faster than a regular bat of the same weight.
I hate to repeat myself but a corking a bat will allow the batter to use a bigger bat with a larger sweet spot resulting in better ball contact.
The tennis racquet analogy is appropriate. If tennis racquets were required to be made of wood the racquets would be pretty much the same size and weight as in the old days. The use of lighter, stronger materials has made the oversized raquet possible. The oversized raquet has a bigger sweet spot and therefore allows the player to hit fewer errant shots with tremendous power. The same is true of golf drivers and hockey sticks.
If MLB allowed materials other than wood the bats would be the same weight but would have huge barrels and all MLB ballparks would be obsolete in their current configuration.
Askance hasn’t checked in to say whether the replies to his question cleared up his confusion.
Just in case they haven’t, I’ll add my own slightly reworded explanation.
(1) A hitter/runner can score no more than one run at one at-bat.
(2) Once the hitter hits the ball, he becomes a runner and tries to advance around the bases in order. He has scored a run, only when he has safely gone all the way around without being put out. The runner goes as far as he can and then stops (on first, second, or third base). The next hitter will try to hit the ball in such a way that any runners on first, second, or third bases will be able to continue advancing without being put out. So, a runner who has made it to first (or second or third base) has neither scored a run, nor is he out. He is still in play and might still be able to score a run, if he can get around the bases to home before the third out is made.
(3) If a batter makes it back to home without being put out and before a third out is made, he has scored a run. He then goes back to the bench and waits for his next at bat (or for the side to be put out after three outs and go back on defense). But, even though he is no longer hitting or running, he is not “out”. He’s just not hitting or running.
Thats not the point. The point is with corking they can use a bat that is a big as regulations allow but it would be lighter than the same sized solid bat. They have already changed bats as far as they can within the rules. The barrel is a big as they can make it without adding too much weight. The handle has been thinned out as much as they can. As it is most players go through a ton of bats a year. Back in olden times players like Babe Ruth swung a mighty piece of lumber. Over the years they found out a lighter bat and faster bat speed was better.
The unaddressed problem here, of course, is where the excess weight is coming from. Do you choose a shorter bat? One with smaller diameter? Either should (I imagine) give you a smaller sweet spot and require a more precise swing.
So, the real question should be: is a larger corked bat “better” than a smaller uncorked bat? “Better” meaning: which helps you get on base the most?
Keep in mind that a player who uses a corked bat doesn’t have to start with the same size bat as he would use if it weren’t corked.
Every batter has an ideal bat size, which seems to be between 31 and 33 ounces for most major leaguers. The ideal size is a compromise between bat speed, power and diameter. Smaller bats can be swung faster, but may not impart as much energy to the ball. Also, it’s harder to make solid contact (or any contact) with a smaller bat. On the other hand, a larger bat can’t be swung as fast which makes it harder to catch up to a fastball, and if the bat speed decreases enough it actually lowers the amount of energy imparted to the ball.
A corked bat of the ideal weight can have larger outside dimensions than an uncorked bat of the same weight. This would give a batter the bat speed of a smaller bat with the ability to make contact of a larger bat.
Another thing to consider is whether corking makes the sweet spot larger. If so, it might cause a ball travel farther if it’s hit near the end of the bat or toward the handle.
