If the MLB should change the bats from wood to metal.
Debate Rounds (5)
With the size and strength of most MLB players and their playing ability just think of the damage they could create with a metal bat. Wooden bats are not only the tradition in major league ball but they are the safer way to go and they would be cheaper over time because there would definitely be safety issues that the metal bat created which would cost a lot.
As far as safety is concerned, wooden bats break into many sizes and pieces. I've seen plenty of wooden bats break into pieces that resemble shapes that of harpoons used to stick into sides of large oceanic whales and aquatic mammals. With that being said, wouldn't you think that those pieces cause more of a threat to players then a single small baseball does? I would think that the odds of getting hit by a ball launched from a bat is much harder to do given the small size of the ball. The bat breaks into enough more pieces to cause a better threat of hitting a player than the ball would.
Metal bats would also break a long baseball tradition. Baseball is basically America's pasttime, and if wooden bats have been used for almost a hundred years the switch would hurt the tradition of the country's national sport. Baseball is a game of tradition and some traditions even if you're considering safety should be maybe managed but not really changed.
In an economically monetary sense, metal bats are the best bet for saving the MLB thousands of dollars over a period of time. Wooden bats do not last nearly as long as a metal bat can. With that being said, more money is wasted replacing the constant demand for wooden bats in the league. If the MLB changes to metal bats, you would see a drastic change in the money spent used on supplying teams with bats. Metal bats on average can take more than 2000 hits before needing change. Even more realistically speaking, if you break a metal bat in correctly, it can last years longer than a wooden bat ever could. With that being said, money well spent can be money well saved in the long run. Especially for an economy as unstable as ours.
As far as tradition is concerned, you are right. The tradition of baseball is one of true majesty. Unfortunately for a society like ours today, change is something necessary to strive and thrive in the world. Wouldn't you say that baseball as a sport has changed over time anyway? Aspects of the game that we have today did not exist back when baseball originally started. Equipment has changed, player attributes have gotten more intense and expected, etc.
Yes it's true that equipment has changed and that player attitudes have gotten nastier and more intense, there's no doubt of that. Guillen was just suspended in Miami for actually speaking in a good way about Castro in a city where a large part of the population is Cuban and left Cuba because of Castro.
I'll also give you that players have done a lot to give themselves an unfair advantage, that's definitely true. But metal bats are really for players that don't need to control their swing as much because they're easier to handle than wood bats. Shouldn't an MLB player be able to use a bat that makes the swing a little bit harder, and is still traditional? Would would the impact be on companies like Louisville Slugger that's been part of baseball and American history for more than a hundred years?
As far as Guillen's comments are concerned, that too is rather unimportant when talking about the situation at hand.
Again, speaking about how you said that players who have a less controlled swing need to use a metal bat, how is that a logical reason? Whether a bat is metal or wooden, the bat is weighed mathematically to be 33 ounces in weight. 33 ounces are 33 ounces regardless of whether the bat is wooden or not. The make does not define your swing, the weight does. Furthermore, uncontrolled swings are based on body mechanics, what bat you use has nothing to do with anything.
As far as revenue and tradition is concerned for the game of baseball, wouldn't you want the hitter to have more of an advantage against the pitcher? 1998 was one of the best seasons for baseball all time, coming off of the strike of 1994. America lost interest of the game of baseball because there was a lack of home runs and offense in general. The fans did not like the small ball style of the game. Mark Mcgwire and Sammy Sosa single handedly saved the game of baseball with one of the most historic seasons with Mcgwire hitting 70 home runs respectably, Sosa hitting 66. Granted there was the steroid scandal with Mcgwire, the fans still love offense regardless. Metal bats would increase the offense of the game and essentially bring the excitement back to the fans of baseball and the game itself.
You are right about what you said in terms of bat weight, no doubt. But Americans don't like it when you start altering traditions even for economics. The 94 strike damaged baseball because it was so against what Americans wanted baseball to be. Metal bats are not the MLB tradition. They are a high school and college item.
Regardless, we as Americans view baseball as an institution. If metal bats saved a fortune in equipment costs, they'll damage the great traditions of America's sport! Americans won't line up to see their sport if it keeps changing.
The very reason why there was a strike in 94 was because there was no change to the game of baseball. Clearly change was needed. If change was not needed, there would have been no strike. That was the very basis as to why I mentioned Mcgwire and Sosa. They helped restore the game of baseball. They deserve to be mentioned because they are the soul reason baseball is still alive and well. The game of baseball needs the resurgence of offense in the league. Over the past decade the game of baseball has been nothing but a pitchers game. Metal bats would give the hitters the edge they need to bring offense back into this game the natural way. I believe that with the metal bats instituted, players will stop doing steroids and the era would be over.
Needless to say, it is clear that the institution of metal bats would be a prudent idea for the MLB. It would cut costs, be environmentally positive because less trees would be cut down, it would begin a resurgence of baseball, and could possibly end the era of steroids forever.
It's pretty much impossible to predict that metal bats would really do away with steroids. With the performance advantage some players would have with metal bats, they might assume that adding steroids to that would put them further even more. It may cut costs in terms of money but it will cost baseball what defines it most, and that is as an American tradition. No one wants to see an MLB player using the same bat he did in high school. Baseball and American traditions also don't mix too well with the environment, I don't think anyone will really care that fewer trees will be cut down. Since 1884 Louisville Slugger has been making bats for players and no one seems to have ever complained before about the amount of trees lost or the cost being so high that it was bankrupting a team. In fact the high school baseball web points out that metal bats are more expensive then wooden ones and that most metal bats won't even survive a full college season so imagine the cost to MLB teams in the end?
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.