No bashing is needed, Tim. I have always enjoyed bantering back and forth with you on OFC. There is a HUGE difference between "bashing" and presenting generally fact-based responses. If anything, this discussion has created better awareness in the OFC fastpitch community about where bat technology is headed, and the gear$ driving that technology.
I don't think people are naive enough to think that the ASA will independently govern bat standards, even under the guise of safety. There is just too much revenue at stake. But I DO believe that they will eventually be forced to, but only after tremendous pressure from outside forces. That's usually how stories like this end. Funny, but ironic how cash flow can cause temporary blindness and ignorance.
The above pretty much covers
my opinion as to why ASA hasn't changed their approved bat list. I have two of the '04 Anderson Rocket Tech (souvenirs). My daughter's swing mechanics were
nowhere close to your daughter's (ask Howard
), but she scattered quite a few dingers with those two bats. She obviously worked harder at her pitching skills than hitting
. The difference in her case was technology. Here was a case where a bat with a HUGE sleeve (among other tricks) created a tremendous sweet spot, and the trampoline effect helped "off center" struck balls become effective hits. This bat is the ultimate "bunt-a-homer" bat, and it is NO WONDER why Dads across America froth at the mouth to get their hands on one of these for their daughter! Hey, I was first in line! And when there continues to be an endless appetite, the supply chain will continue - until outside forces with an unclouded perspective intervene. The kids who have worked to create tremendous power of their own (your daughter included), and create offense with their
OWN physical ability will still be the leaders in hitting. Bustos would (IS) still be an unstoppable force - even if she were using a wood bat.
Lets think about pitcher vs batter. Statistically, 10 top level pitchers have an advantage over 10 top level hitters. Statistically, there MUST be a greater number of great hitters to balance a fewer number of great pitchers. Let's reduce that logic down to a single game scenario. Using this logic, let's assume team A has ONE dominant top level pitcher. Team B has ONE dominant top level hitter. Obviously, if no one else on team B can hit, the team A pitcher will dominate all but that single hitter. Stupid logic? Yes, but you see this at the high school level all the time. One single pitcher can carry a team all the way to a State championship. Dominant pitching can be overcome, but it take several competent hitters facing that pitcher to accomplish this.
This perceived "imbalance" between pitcher/batter has been in the game from day one, and nothing has changed today. Umpires "Giving chalk" to pitchers is simply a case of incompetent umpires defacing the game. I know it's wrong; you know it's wrong. Anytime umpires create their own rules, or misinterpret existing rules dirties the pureness of the game. But that has nothing to do with pure "pitcher vs batter". The single most effective way to balance this "battle" is EXACTLY what you are doing - teaching kids how to hit!
It's been said many times before - if EVERY kid worked on their hitting skills as hard as the hardest working pitchers, teams could not ride a single dominant pitcher to a Sunday championship game! Anyone who doesn't see that change gradually taking place has their head in the sand. Hitters ARE getting better - TREMENDOUSLY better in the last 15 years - which is fantastic for the sport of fastpitch. There are dedicated people who jumped on the bandwagon to skill improvement, and started teaching superior skills. The kids who learn these skills are the ones who advance to the college ranks.
Now, here's the doggie-downer. I'm only promoting INDIVIDUAL skills. Skills that use
individual physical abilities, like improving swing mechanics - swing speed, hand path, vision techniques, etc. It's been proven that by improving these attributes ALONE hitters can dominate pitching. Ignoring that fact is denying that great hitters like Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron, Mantle, Cobb - etc. never existed. And claiming "But that's baseball, not softball" is nothing but an excuse. I have yet to see proven statistics that (ALL THINGS EQUAL) a fastpitch pitcher has an advantage over hitters that a baseball pitcher doesn't have. That claim also diminishes the significance of the work ethic of great softball hitters. It says that
"we have to give the girl batters a technological advantage, because they can't do it on their own". I say that is BS, and is the result of laziness, and enterprising bat manufacturers are taking advantage of that laziness.
I don't know the answer as to why the NCAA stepped in with regards to baseball bats. Time will tell if it was a good thing or not. Recent statistics show just how much an effect the bat was having over and above physical ability. From what I read, high schools are adopting these same standards. Anyone who doesn't believe that the NCAA isn't watching these statistics with guarded optimism is misguided. I predict it's just a matter of time until similar BBCOR standards are applied to NCAA fastpitch, and eventually trickle down to ASA and other governing bodies.
Yes, the game of women's fastpitch has advanced. It has advanced tremendously by girls becoming more aware of physical conditioning and training, and how those can make you a better athlete. Faster, stronger athletes, in their own right, is what is making the game great. Technology that has advanced training techniques (RVP, digital slo-mo, etc.) has greatly helped those physical gains. Giving credit to bat technology for those gains is a slap in the face to all the girls who accomplish their goals using their own physical ability.
Here is a link to some interesting reading about the technology behind the bats from some differing perspectives.
http://webusers.npl.illinois.edu/~a-nathan/pob/bats.html
