I'm still wondering why they don't just ban the maple bats. Concern over the manufacturers?

Best idea of all would be to impose a minimum bat-handle circumference for all bats, maple or not. Thicker, heavier bats, plus moving the batters' boxes a few inches back off the plate, would lead to a more interesting mode of play.

Best idea of all would be to impose a minimum bat-handle circumference for all bats, maple or not. Thicker, heavier bats, plus moving the batters' boxes a few inches back off the plate, would lead to a more interesting mode of play.

Agreed. Though I think the change in length-width difference would be a good start.

Well, I like the bat-handle part, but the moving the the batter's box is a little extreme, don't you think? Placing those two things together in one sentence is a little unfair.

Well, I like the bat-handle part, but the moving the the batter's box is a little extreme, don't you think? Placing those two things together in one sentence is a little unfair.

Unfair? Extreme? Just wait til you hear our shared opinion on the Infield Fly rule.

I think this might impact how some GM's act this winter. If you know the rule for bats is going to change and you are looking at a guy who uses a bat that will now be illegal do you put a discount on how he'll do? Especially if he has been making his bat lighter over the past few years? I'd think you'd have to factor it in.

I don't think the batters box needs to be moved. Just change one thing at a time, let's start with the bat handles and length/weight rules.

If that results in players needing to use shorter bats since they will have trouble swinging a 34 inch, 34 oz bat effectively, we certainly don't want to keep them from being able to handle the outside corner. Especially the shorter players, Eckstein has to crowd the plate to hit the outside pitch as it is.

Like they ever enforce the current batters box rules. What's the point in changing a rule that is completely ignored anyway?

If that results in players needing to use shorter bats since they will have trouble swinging a 34 inch, 34 oz bat effectively, we certainly don't want to keep them from being able to handle the outside corner.

Actually, we certainly do, if re-imposing an appropriate balance of offense is what we seek. If we don't want anything to change, then of course we shouldn't change anything.

Like they ever enforce the current batters box rules. What's the point in changing a rule that is completely ignored anyway?

Well, it's obviously stupid to have any rule on the books that isn't enforced. Duh. But that shouldn't prevent us from advocating improved rules, and improved enforcement of rules.

I'm still wondering why they don't just ban the maple bats.

I know I heard an H&B;spokesman say that ash of the quality required is in short supply and that they'd need more time than they had to lay in enough to meet this season's demands.

Agrilus planipennis

"If I had a blog about Baseball Bats, I’d name it 'Sons of Pete Browning'."

Pete Browning had syphilis, and mostly frequented whores. Just sayin'.

Actually, we certainly do, if re-imposing an appropriate balance of offense is what we seek. If we don't want anything to change, then of course we shouldn't change anything.

I don't want some players, due to a combination of bat rules and moving the batters box back, to find it physically impossible to make contact with a pitch in the strike zone. I don't need to see strikeouts go through the roof here. I'll be happy if the result is players taking that pitch the other way for a single as opposed to driving it for power.

I'm with you on wanting less offense. One rule change at a time though, start with the bats, see where that gets us before making other changes.

I don't want some players, due to a combination of bat rules and moving the batters box back, to find it physically impossible to make contact with a pitch in the strike zone.

Please understand that by no means am I advocating such a drastic alteration in bat length and/or batters' box placement to render it "physically impossible to make contact with a pitch in the strike zone." I'm talking about a few inches; David Eckstein would still be entirely capable of physically reaching the far side of home plate with his bat.

One rule change at a time though, start with the bats, see where that gets us before making other changes.

Fair enough, although the way I envision moving the batters' boxes back is the way Bill James envisioned it: move them back one inch per season. Nobody will get all messed up by a single inch. But move it back an inch per season, and after 3 or 4 years we'll probably have found a better home than we have now.

Batters are far bigger and stronger than they were when the current dimensions of the batters' boxes were laid out. It's past time we recalibrated appropriately.

Batters are far bigger and stronger than they were when the current dimensions of the batters' boxes were laid out. It's past time we recalibrated appropriately.

By raising the mound back up!

"If I had a blog about Baseball Bats, I’d name it 'Sons of Pete Browning'."

Pete Browning had syphilis, and mostly frequented whores. Just sayin'.

But that is the idea. Browning had a addled brain from the infection, much like the ash trees are addled with the infestation of worms.

By raising the mound back up!

This is a horrible idea.

I'm with the idea of one change at a time, otherwise we are deep into the law of unintended consequences territory.

Instead of moving the batters box I'd be in favour of either eliminating body armour or not awarded a HBP for players who are hit on their armour. Failing that, enforcing the rule that players who don't try and get out of the way (I'm looking at you Reed Johnson) don't get a base.

By raising the mound back up!

This is a horrible idea.

Yes, it's a horrible idea. The higher mound increases the sharpness of the angle of pitches, and depresses offense in all the wrong ways.

Instead of moving the batters box I'd be in favour of either eliminating body armour or not awarded a HBP for players who are hit on their armour. Failing that, enforcing the rule that players who don't try and get out of the way (I'm looking at you Reed Johnson) don't get a base.

I don't think eliminating body armor is very sensible. What is a batting helmet if not body armor? Preventing the frequency and severity of injuries should always be a priority.

But, yes, absolutely, the rule should be enforced that batters who make no meaningful effort to get out of the way of the pitch shouldn't be awarded first base.

And while I'm sympathetic to the notion that the law of unintended consequences always applies, I guess in these particular instances I'm not all that worried. What I'm advocating are incremental modifications to the bat-handle and batters-box specs, not sweeping overhauls.

I don't think eliminating body armor is very sensible. What is a batting helmet if not body armor? Preventing the frequency and severity of injuries should always be a priority.

That's asinine. The comment fairly obviously is referring the bionic arms and similar popular with some players.

The comment fairly obviously is referring the bionic arms and similar popular with some players.

Assuming that's "fairly obvious," so what? I remain unconvinced why it is that exposing players to injury is a positive. So long as we ensure (by batters' box placement and enforcement of that rule) that they aren't hanging over the strike zone, and that if they do get hit by a pitch without having attempted to get out of the way (by enforcement of that rule) that they aren't awarded first base and the pitch is merely called a ball, then there's nothing gained by prohibiting body armor.

Would raising the mound lower injuries to pitchers?

Best idea of all would be to impose a minimum bat-handle circumference for all bats, maple or not.

I used to think that. I started buying think-handled bats for use in my Hobbs league - those were the shortest-lived bats I've ever had.

The real concern is the dryness of the wood. Maple is heavier than ash and to compensate the wood is getting dried more than it can handle on impact. A thicker handle would probably just mean requests to dry them out even more and breakage would increase, that's been my experience anyway.

The other problem is not enough varnish is being used, mostly because it adds weight. The longest-lasting bat I've ever used is a bamboo bat that had about 3 coats of varnish on it, the bamboo itself has nothing to do with the lifespan. The only time I use an unvarnished or low-varnish bat is when I face a guy throwing upper 80's or more (which is seldom at my age) because I need the lighter bat in those situations. That's another thing I've noticed with the miracle of HDTV - you can really get a good look at the bats players are using. Seldom do you see a guy using anything but the same model of bat day in day out, even after a breakage. Seems to me you'd be crazy to use the same bat against Jamie Moyer as you would against Brad Lidge, but players do. And the better catchers notice it.

For those that want to see a little decrease in offense, heavier bats will definitely provide that without any other changes. If you want to stop breakage and limit offense you could mandate hickory bats like they used in the 30's and 40's - bats so heavy they were +5 and +6 weight/length versus the -2 and -3 weight/length you see today. You'd be crazy to use a +6 agaisnt Bob Gibson of you could use a -3, and if the club is buying the bats then you have no concern over breakage. And that's part of the reason you're seeing so much breakage - the player doesn't care if the bat breaks; it ain't his money and any gripe from the owners about expenses has to go through the union. The owners aren't griping about bat costs, they're griping about insurance/liability costs.

Pete Browning had syphilis, and mostly frequented whores.

Ah, but only "mostly."