Somewhat OT: Kid dies from aluminum bat, family now rich
by Devin on Nov 4, 2009 3:14 AM PST
108 comments
Mont. jury awards $850,000 in aluminum bat lawsuit
I'm sure opinions will vary, though most people I've talked to fall into two catagories. One being, what the hell was this jury smoking? And the other being that this will help get rid of "dangerous" aluminum bats in little league/high school/legion ball.
0 recs |
108 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Makes sense to me - Here are my own pending lawsuits:
1) I am suing Callaway Golf for creating clubs that hit golf balls at fast speeds.
2) I am suing Wilson for making tennis rackets with tight strings.
3) I am suing SBNation for making comments with faster loading times.
4) I am suing gunpowder manufacturers for making bullets fly faster. I long for a world where people throw bullets at people rather than shoot them. Similarly
5) I am suing the parents of those that have thrown bullets for having their child born with arms that can throw.
I think that family did too little. I think they should also sue the pitcher for throwing the ball too hard, since the force of the pitch contributed to the speed of the … oh shit.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Nov 4, 2009 3:44 AM PST reply actions 7 recs
In 2003, there were 42,463 traffic fatalities in the United States and one aluminum bat related baseball death
we should ban cars because they cause so many deaths! We should go back to transportation the way it was meant to be, on foot, and if we can manage it, via canoe.
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 9:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
My grandfather died in a gruesome canoe accident. You take that back.
Batted .393/.614/.464 for 2009 Diablos, #5 in OBP for PSSBL Rocky Division.
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Nov 4, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I could reduce those vehicular deaths by a massive amount very quickly.
It would involve taking away driver’s licenses from about 25% of the drivers out there.
by Sec 108 on Nov 4, 2009 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the whole take-the-test-once-and-never-have-to-again rule is rather ridiculous.
by Mariner John on Nov 4, 2009 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Way to go, Arizona.
Batted .393/.614/.464 for 2009 Diablos, #5 in OBP for PSSBL Rocky Division.
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Nov 4, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Damn.
I thought you were going to ban shitty beer.
SHOW FiFi THE MONEY!!!!
by PositivePaul on Nov 4, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is far more subjective than shitty driving.
by Sec 108 on Nov 4, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Shitty driving varies from state to state.
Shitty beer is generally constant.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/marinersminors/
by JY on Nov 4, 2009 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can too.
My plan is too have anyone exceeding the speed limit by more than 5 mph and anyone driving a non-disabled car slower than 5 under the speed limit summarily executed on the side of the road by the “arresting” officer.
by Ike Clanton on Nov 4, 2009 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the single worst idea I've ever heard
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How about that time your roommate said,
“Let’s do one more shot of Jaeger?”
by Sec 108 on Nov 4, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ike's idea is like thirty times worse than that
and one more shot of Jaeger is never a good idea
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree to disagree
Except for that time that it caused me to get lost leaving the College Inn.
by Robert on Nov 4, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Speed variation has very little to do with good/bad driving
It’s entire extent applies to people who drive too slow in the fast lane and too fast through neighborhoods full of little kids. Going 5+ under in the far right lane of a freeway is generally safe, and it’s generally safe to go (a minimum) of 5+ over in lanes to the left.
Now, if we’re talking summarily executing drivers who don’t understand the concept of “Keep Right Except to Pass,” then I’m down
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
*its
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
At the risk of Corco baiting...
Keep right except to pass, wherein the far left non-carpool lane is the passing lane, was a brilliant idea forty years ago when there weren’t nearly as many cars on the road.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/marinersminors/
by JY on Nov 4, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Leave your major metro area for two minutes and you'll find it still works great on most of the nation's freeways
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of people in this country live in major metropolitan areas
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess my point is that people unnecessarily in the left lane, except in heavily congested situations, as was mentioned
encourages passing on the right and road rage. Both of these things are very dangerous and contribute to a lot of accidents.
I-5 through Seattle is congested most of the time, but I know from living there that there are plenty of times where there was plenty of available roadway and some asshat was cruising in the left lane going well below the speed of the flow of traffic
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I find it amusing that your opinion on traffic is almost exactly the same as my own
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's because it's not opinion
What makes the road safe and keeps accidents from happening is what makes the road safe and keeps accidents from happening. People who cruise in the left lane below the speed of the flow of traffic for no explicable reason are a danger. That’s not opinion; that’s fact
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would really love to hear a cogent argument AGAINST this. It's common sense.
If you’re in the fast lane and you notice 4-5 cars piled up behind you while the lane to your right is mostly free, you’re a cock.
I see it so often and it drives me up the wall. What’s worst is that this particular affliction is everywhere in the Northwest. You get less of it in California, in my experience, and much less in the UK – both of which have more cars and more density than we do.
by marc w on Nov 4, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My dad was just that asshole
he would always camp out in the left lane, going the speed limit, and would say something like “I’M GOING THE SPEED LIMIT WHAT’S EVERYONE’S PROBLEM”. Unfortunately, he was not rational about the subject so he never changed his attitude. But it’s the main reason I can’t stand people that camp out in the fast lane.
by pdb on Nov 4, 2009 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My Dad gets in the left lane on rural freeways these days because the pavement is smoother
He finds the usually significantly more worn right lane to be “too bumpy” and then forgets he’s there when other cars come, so he’s usually just driving down the left lane going the speed limit even when he’s the only car on the road.
It drives me nuts
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was the thing about my dad
He didn’t forget he was there, and the more cars that were behind him the more resolute his desire to stay there got. It was unbelievably annoying.
by pdb on Nov 4, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that's the worst
and there’s no real way for cops to enforce that either, so people who do that don’t get ticketed, making them think they aren’t breaking the law, even though they are.
I was driving back from Denver a few months ago, and on I-25 between Loveland and Fort Collins where the speed limit is 75 I was cruising along at 80. This is a fairly congested stretch of road, so generally it ends up being fast traffic in the left, slow on the right.
I came up on this old Dodge Caravan in the left lane who was doing 55 (!) in the 75 zone. To add to the ridiculousness of this, he had a giant sign in his back window that said “Bring back 55” or something to that effect. He was essentially using the left lane as a blunt political statement and was cruising in the left at 20 MPH below .
Needless to say I saw a lot of headlight flashing, tailgating, and heavy braking to get into the right lane (which usually moves around 70 with the left going 80-85). It was an overall dangerous situation and I hope this person was killed
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, there is a way to enforce it, at least in my state...
Tell your dad to stay in the right lane, damnit.
by Devin on Nov 4, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a law in every state
but cops rarely ever notice it, and tickets are hardly ever given out for it. It’s easier to make your revenue nailing speeders going 11 over than keeping your eye out for people trolling in the left lane
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Laziness...
I know MHP enforces it and I know traffic-inclined SD’s enforce it too. More emphasis is going to go toward nailing people slowing others down on three/four-lane highways than picking off someone going 86 in a 75.
But I do understand that’s it’s not like that in WA. WSP wrote me a nice little $104 ticket in 2006 for passing someone at 74 in a 70 in the middle of Grant County at 3pm on a clear summer day.
by Devin on Nov 4, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It also helps that compared to other states, Montana
A) has really low speeding fines, making it less worth it to write a ticket
B) historically has placed less emphasis on speeding being problematic
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The AMOUNT of the fine...
at least in my opinion has little to do with whether or not it’s “worth it” to write a citation for speeding. I find that tickets only work when someone truly does not want to change their (dangerous) driving behavior, otherwise a simple warning comes in handy, especially when the infraction didn’t seem to endanger anyone. Both take essentially the same amount of time.
by Devin on Nov 4, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except writing a ticket for money helps the officer's quota
Traffic enforcement in most jurisdictions has very little to do with saving lives and keeping dangerous drivers off the road and things like that and more to do with generating as much cash as possible
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only if quotas are used.
Which here (except in some city jurisdictions) they are not. Certainly no SD’s work on traffic quotas because most would have been fired long ago.
by Devin on Nov 4, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, not in Montana, but in most jurisdictions where it's feasible
I’m saying that Montana is not representative of most jurisdictions in the United States
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Originally, I qualified this whole thread
with “at least in my state”.
And since this state is the best, I win.
by Devin on Nov 4, 2009 4:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
also... $104 for going 4 over??! Was it at least a construction zone?
In Nebraska the speeding fine for 1-5 MPH over is US$5, US$10 in a construction zone.
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They charge fines in US dollars in a US state? Shocking!
/end snark
by pdb on Nov 4, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought I needed to clarify given how low the fine was
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 4:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No construction zone.
For perspective, I was pulled over about three weeks prior to that on MT-200 and given a $40 ticket by an MHP.
That was for doing 117 in a 70.
by Devin on Nov 4, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't see it as much in California because people will first tailgate you three feet back, then speed by you 20 mph faster and cut you back off from the second-left lane
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When I moved back here, I did that all the time.
People were terrified. Hell, I was terrified of how frustrated and angry I was getting with people every day (my first job when I moved back was 70 miles from home).
Anyway, the point is, California has a community enforcement scheme (tailgate/undertake), same as in the UK. In the UK however, undertaking is not terribly common and the cops will pull you over for it. This means that someone sitting in the fast lane would be seriously inconveniencing those behind him/her, and thus I’m told that it’s rammed into student drivers’ heads to never, never do it.
by marc w on Nov 4, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just out of morbid curiosity, is the fast lane in the UK the right or left lane?
I have no idea how the highways are structured
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's the right lane.
Their highways structure’s the same, it’s just the whole driving on the right/left issue.
Their M freeways correspond to our I freeways, so you can do some rough apples-to-apples comparisons.
by marc w on Nov 4, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That makes sense
The fast lane couldn’t possibly be the outside lane unless exits were on the inside and every rural interchange had a very expensive flyover system
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only?
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Women, amirite?
Say it with me: Washington Capitals. Capitals.
Preserved In All His Greatness - R.I.P. The Reignman 1989 to 1997
by JLProck on Nov 4, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do we get 80-pound halberds too?
A Mariners fan in Seattle
by Coach Owens on Nov 4, 2009 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
The headline is misleading
The bat didn’t kill the kid. The ball did. It’s like the whole Coolbaugh thing not long ago.
Whatever solution they come up with is probably going to be a money drain. Fit kids for safer helmets? Switch to wooden bats?
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/marinersminors/
by JY on Nov 4, 2009 9:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sue the makers of the ball!
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Nov 4, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I could be mistaken
But I think I read something about North Dakota high schools switching to wood bats and seeing an overall decrease in bat costs. They spent a lot on aluminum bats because they crack easily in cold weather.
by Manzanillos Cup on Nov 4, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Most states don't have North Dakota like weather and will spend more money replacing broken wood bats
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They wanted to change the manufacturing process on the aluminum bats a few years back.
The changes were watered down to the point where nothing was changed. Hopefully the aluminum bats go away and they switch to maple bats.
"You can trust me, I'm an engineer"- seattlebruin
by Kermit. on Nov 4, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Could I be any more repetitive, son of a bitch that's annoying.
"You can trust me, I'm an engineer"- seattlebruin
by Kermit. on Nov 4, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with wood bats is that kids simply aren't strong enough to use them before pro ball
through Little League and up until high school, we used bats that weighed anywhere from length -7 to length-12 (length in inches, weight in ounces).
The typical wood bat is a +2 – the problem is that most kids want to have a longer bat because they’re a bit afraid of the ball, even though the most important consideration with a bat is weight. It’s really not a good thing to force kids to use much heavier bats – it kills the fun of the game and probably hurts them as hitters long-term. It’s really not until past high school, after physical maturity that you’re really ready to handle a bat of that weight.
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
From what I read about the last big whoop de doo over aluminum bats
The major concern was how the weight was loaded, but don’t take that as gospel. I’m looking for a source that references what I read. Seemed like an easy concession for the bat makers, plus rule changes would require selling an ass load of new bats.
It really felt like one of those situations where industry entrenches and refuses all modification or change, to their own detriment. Be interesting to see where this eventually winds up.
"You can trust me, I'm an engineer"- seattlebruin
by Kermit. on Nov 4, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey what do you know, I found it!
"You can trust me, I'm an engineer"- seattlebruin
by Kermit. on Nov 4, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That link is mostly the engineering of the aluminum bat, this one is more about the proposed changes
It’s amusing to me that they proposed making the aluminum bat mimic wood batting characteristics, and this caused the respective bat manufacturers to sue each other.
Anyway, after some reflection I don’t believe I’m arguing against you. My comment about switching to maple bats might have muddied the waters, it was sarcasm. Mostly I’m ambivalent about this bat issue, put one of my kids on the mound and I might change my tune, what gets me about it is the industries reaction to a call for change. I guess from a marketing standpoint bats are kind of like golf clubs, sell one that hits the ball farther than the competition and you sell more bats.
Anyway, it’s a complicated issue since there are kids and emotions to be taken into account. This was a decent read, I don’t know how current the information is, this is just stuff I read the last time aluminum bat were a big deal.
"You can trust me, I'm an engineer"- seattlebruin
by Kermit. on Nov 4, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, what?
Kids had fun playing baseball for about 100 years before aluminum bats were available.
by Manzanillos Cup on Nov 4, 2009 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Next thing they'll be telling us grass isn't safe to play on anymore.
"You can trust me, I'm an engineer"- seattlebruin
by Kermit. on Nov 4, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If you're interested in developing baseball as a sport and getting players to play well, aluminum bats are good
if you’re concerned about one tragedy every six years from a game played by millions and millions of kids, then by all means, go to wood bats.
I hope you’re aware that wood bats have this interesting tendency to break and occasionally shatter
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are way off on your analysis here, but it is a tough one to define.
Saying bats have an effect on whether or not kids enjoy playing a game seems like a strange stance to take. I sucked at hitting but still loved playing the game. I knew kids who hit the crap out of the ball but only played because Dad made them.
I used wood bats all the way through until high school and only had one bat break. They also made them plenty light so 90 pound weaklings like me could swing them.
by Sec 108 on Nov 4, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll try to post something more coherent later on - I think I have a point, but I don't think I developed it fully
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can kind of see what you are saying, but metal bats were sold to us as
a cost savings when they became they norm in the late 80’s. Now, it is actually cheaper to use wood bats because the non-metal are so ridiculously priced and they also do not last more than one season.
At the time metal bats came into vogue it was believed they would hurt development because the heavier bats forced younger bodies to grow muscle mass. I’m not sure I have strong feelings one way or the other, but I would be a tough sell if you tried to say metal bats are a better product for the game than wood at any age.
by Sec 108 on Nov 4, 2009 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree a lot with the first statement, but that's really more of a problem with the manufacturers pushing the envelope too much than aluminum vs. wood
I think the argument being used now is that metal bats are simply lighter than comparable length wood ones, and thus don’t force kids to use bats that are too heavy. In all honesty, after having coached a lot of baseball, kids don’t know if a bat is too heavy – simply being able to swing a bat is not enough – the bat needs to be light enough to be effectively swung through the strike zone in the control of the hitter.
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not bothered by aluminum bat safety issues.
Or wood bat safety issues, for that matter. And I think for cost reasons, aluminum bats are probably a better choice for getting kids into baseball. What I don’t understand is why you think wood bats are so infeasible for kids. Young kids don’t face hard throwing pitchers and they aren’t very strong, so they can use lighter models of wood bats without having to worry about them breaking (a lot). And you can get -3 wood bats for use at higher levels, which is a very reasonable weight for high school players. I’m not going to argue that making 12-year-olds swing +3’s isn’t going to screw up their ability to hit a ball.
I don’t really have any other stake in this other than I played in wood bat tournaments in HS and I found I actually really liked hitting with wood ( as kids did from the late 1800’s to the 70’s).
by Manzanillos Cup on Nov 4, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I prefer hitting with wood as well
but I’m also a lot stronger than I was at age 15.
Most 12 year old kids need ~ -10 bats to hit effectively. Certainly they won’t be 2/3 like MLB bats due to the 2 1/4 inch barrels, but getting to the necessary weight is just not something I’ve seen very often.
It’s not just the velocity of pitchers that makes a difference with wood – it adds one more thing to think about at the plate (hitting label up/down), and it’s hard to teach kids to do that. I suspect you’d see a lot of broken bats just from things like that.
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
12 year olds cannot hit effectively, period.
I don’t think I ever used a -10 metal bat. I’d never heard of such a thing.
I guess it may be a definitional thing – how you’re defining bat control or effective hitting. But I can’t imagine a kid would drop the sport because he had to use a wood bat (just like Albert Pujols/Ichiro!). Maybe he would hit marginally poorer with it, but so be it.
by marc w on Nov 4, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think my POV comes from having given a lot of hitting lessons
and seeing way too many kids pretend they can handle a bat that’s obviously too heavy. I’m a huge proponent of lighter bats because of this
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh. That's interesting.
I actively avoided the lighter bats; you need so much more precision, because unless the impact was right on the sweet spot, it produced little power.
Of course, I wasn’t a good hitter, so…. there’s that.
by marc w on Nov 4, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is that lighter bats give you a lot more bat control and thus a better chance to hit the ball squarely
and that’s what you want to teach – mechanics and preparations to hit the ball hard. Yeah, heavy bats protect your hands a bit more, but with the kinds of batting gloves and grips used now, it’s not such a big deal.
It’s just really frustrating to watch a kid hit with a 23 oz bat and not be able to catch up to pitches or simply be unable to consistently put the sweet spot on the ball in soft toss, then hand them a 19 oz bat and watch them tear it up.
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 2:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
19 oz. bats? NINETEEN? 1-9?
Wha?
I never really had a decent hitting instructor, but a heavier bat places a premium on other skills that are also important in developing batting acumen. I still find it incredible that a kid would fundamentally change from a poor hitter to a good one with a lighter bat. Finally, I think if fear has something to do with it, and the -12 allow them to stand further back, they are trading some aspect of their hitting for comfort. If you’re doing that at 12, you’re probably not long for competitive baseball.
(This is getting pretty far afield from the original debate, and that’s largely my fault)
by marc w on Nov 4, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not so much going from poor to good as it is giving a decent hitter a bat which gives them a better shot to do well
a kid with no hand-eye coordination is still going to have no hand-eye coordination, but a kid with good coordination using a bat that’s too heavy will see a pretty serious improvement upon using a properly-sized (length and weight) bat
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of made it intentionally misleading.
Yeah, the ball killed the kid (not so sure I should be calling him a kid given he was 18), but the family claims that the death is a direct result of the bat.
by Devin on Nov 4, 2009 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The pitcher shouldn't have thrown such a meatball.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Nov 4, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be insensitive.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Nov 4, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap, a Devin appearance!
FUCK THE ANGELS! FUCK THE ANGELS! FUCK THE ANGELS!
by Goose on Nov 4, 2009 10:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Now all we need is for Trent to show up...
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/marinersminors/
by JY on Nov 4, 2009 11:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That'll be the day...
SHOW FiFi THE MONEY!!!!
by PositivePaul on Nov 4, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, what's next, PluTim?
FUCK THE ANGELS! FUCK THE ANGELS! FUCK THE ANGELS!
by Goose on Nov 5, 2009 9:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And Gomez
2009 Safeco Field Record: 6-0 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 10-4
by Fin on Nov 5, 2009 7:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe this is the best we'd be able to get...
SHOW FiFi THE MONEY!!!!
by PositivePaul on Nov 5, 2009 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bwhahaha I totally forgot about this picture.
FUCK THE ANGELS! FUCK THE ANGELS! FUCK THE ANGELS!
by Goose on Nov 5, 2009 9:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I did a little math...
…and determined that the difference between a wood bat and an aluminum bat as far as pitcher reaction time is around 13 milliseconds.
13 seconds is a meaningless amount of time for a human.
Juries are stupid.
http://inplaynoouts.blogspot.com/ - A blog about teams I like, written by me.
#34
by Carl Johnson on Nov 4, 2009 1:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
13 milliseconds. Not 13 seconds.
13 seconds means something.
http://inplaynoouts.blogspot.com/ - A blog about teams I like, written by me.
#34
by Carl Johnson on Nov 4, 2009 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
13 milliseconds means some appreciable drop in velocity of the ball though
velocity of the ball is just as big a factor as reaction time to get out of the way.
The point is that wood bats are safer in terms of speed of batted balls, but it’s not as if every aluminum bat out there is a death trap waiting to happen.
If you’re so worried about your children getting hurt, I suggest you not let them play any sport but… I don’t know, are there sports without injury risks? I guess I’ve never heard of someone dying from bowling, but that’s about it.
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The ultimate point is that the overall numbers are insignificant
5 more mph and .013 fewer seconds to react isn’t more likely to kill you than 5 fewer and more time if it hits you in the right spot.
It’s a freak accident, and certainly not the fault of a bat-maker. The whole point of the product is to forcefully redirect a projectile towards an assembly of humans.
http://inplaynoouts.blogspot.com/ - A blog about teams I like, written by me.
#34
by Carl Johnson on Nov 4, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
's a roughly 10% drop in the force behind the ball, which isn't completely insignificant.
And yes, I am agreeing with you
by seattlebruin on Nov 4, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Guess you've never heard the tale of Gluehands O'Hoolihan
He put so much into that backswing….then bam, face full of bowling ball.
by OlSalty on Nov 4, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if it wasn't significant, it's not even close to the only factor involved.
And there is no way to note with any reliability that having those extra 13 milliseconds would have been enough time for the pitcher to dodge.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Nov 6, 2009 1:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A disturbing aspect of this story
Brandon Patch was pitching for the Miles City Mavericks when the ball ricocheted off his head, eventually falling behind first base after traveling as high as 50 feet in the air.
Patch went into convulsions on the field in front of a horrified crowd and died within hours from his injury.
Teammate convulsions or no, an American Legion first baseman has to make that play.
by lemonverbena on Nov 6, 2009 8:13 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
While yes, it may have been ridiculous to sue the manufacturer of aluminum bats
The amount awarded is not absurd.
Figure this kid had at least forty years of earning potential behind him. What they awarded is assuming he would be making $20,000 per year, including any benefits. That’s not including any medical bills or funeral costs. We don’t know that the kid died instantly, either, so there could have been some costs involved.
Did the family need to sue? Absolutely not. But it’s quite possible they were simply trying to recover some costs, and it ended up going to trial rather than being settled.
by NOLAmarinergirl on Nov 6, 2009 8:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If someone close to me died, I'd want to sue someone too.
But suing the aluminum bat company for making a ball that goes too fast is nonsensical, and while I can even admit that I might consider that option if it helped me let out my anger/sadness, it shouldn’t have won the trial. You can sue the team, the player that hit it, the league – these all make more sense than bat makers.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Nov 6, 2009 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
