Worth454 Pulled from college game.

[jonriv]

Easton Stealth Speed
The 2005 Stealth might be the best ever. The University of Hawaii switched to it and hit 158 homers last season, up from 62 the year before. "There were a number of home runs hit this year, and I think it has just brought up a big question mark in a lot of people's minds: 'Wow, this team goes from being an average home run-hitting team and suddenly doubles or triples that in one year, and they're using bats that are really old, made in 2005?' " Cal coach Diane Ninemire told The Stockton Record. "Why would you be using a bat made in 2005 when many of these teams are getting new bats every year?" College hitters believed that version had extra pop. The latest version of the Speed bat is better known for its large hitting area and whip action.


Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/35574 ... z2OJyhGf8s

[UmpSteve]

Umpsteve- AI is refering to the Nike Bats that UCLA used prior to 2011(They no longer use) and the older (Easton?) bats that the University of Hawaii used

2011 Standard
Prior to the start of the 2011 softball season, the NCAA instituted a rule that no bat may have a speed rating higher than 98 mph, meaning 98 mph is the maximum speed that the ball may come off the bat. This came after a dramatic increase in home run totals across college softball in 2010. The University of Hawaii softball team hit 158 home runs that season, beating the previous team record by 24. Bat testers found that the speed of the softball off the bat often exceeded 104 MPH, so the NCAA decided to institute the change.


Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/46882 ... RuHB/quote]

http://www.livestrong.com/article/46882 ... -softball/

To AI's point-These bats are still legal in ASA and PGF

Complaints from other schools prompted NCAA action. Bat MFGs pull their bats before they reach the three strike level.

First off, you are overlooking the point. "the Nike Bats that UCLA used prior to 2011(They no longer use) and the older (Easton?) bats that the University of Hawaii used" is still not specifying a bat model. And, as you know, those bats have not failed the definition of "hot" bats. AI hasn't named one bat model because no such model exists. We have his opinion.

Second, those bats to which you refer are not and were not ever available to the general public. Who cares what some illegal bat roller tells you to use to start with to make an illegal bat; the reason the other coaches were outraged and the NCAA took action was because it was well known that these particular bats were a "special" production line, and Candrea and others were at a disadvantage because THEY weren't getting the same bats available to THEM.

Yes, some tested above 98; up to 104. Those were confiscated, no longer exist, aren't publicly available. Every bat was taken from those teams after the postseason testing proved the facts. This is the same as painting an illegal bat with a legal bat's holo; the legal bat that it looks like isn't made illegal or hit by that apparent resemblance.

But AI doesn't want to know the truth, he wants to claim to KNOW without possession of any facts. I have repeatedly asked him to support with even one bat model what he keeps claiming exists, but he can't. So despite his continuing rhetoric with babble instead of facts or actual evidence, let me state:

1) There are no bats in ASA, NFHS or even his beloved PGF that meet the contractual definition of illegally hot for any approved softball agency.
2) No current bat model in ANY of those agencies using the ASA bat standard has ever tested in WSU lab tests with the appropriate number of individual model failures to be declared "hot" by any of those agencies, OR by NCAA; except those already and currently listed on the ASA Non-Approved Bat List, making them NOT usable in ASA, NFHS, or PGF play.
3) Without evidence to support that any agency KNOWS that an unsafe or otherwise "hot" bat is still on any approved bat list, AI's speculation that some ambulance chaser can (and will, ultimately) use that as a cause of action is pointless, unfounded, and even possibly actionable on it's own as defamatory and libelous.
4) Despite knowing he has no evidence to support any of his allegations, he continues to insist that to not agree with him and to KNOW like he does means others are ignoring facts (which he has yet to produce).

Okay, I'm done. No further response on the topic, he has no facts to refute any of what is stated above and throughout this thread, and his straw man efforts at circular proof are proven pointless.

But some one else give him a cracker. It is clear he needs one.

[jonriv]

Umpsteve- AI is refering to the Nike Bats that UCLA used prior to 2011(They no longer use) and the older (Easton?) bats that the University of Hawaii used

2011 Standard
Prior to the start of the 2011 softball season, the NCAA instituted a rule that no bat may have a speed rating higher than 98 mph, meaning 98 mph is the maximum speed that the ball may come off the bat. This came after a dramatic increase in home run totals across college softball in 2010. The University of Hawaii softball team hit 158 home runs that season, beating the previous team record by 24. Bat testers found that the speed of the softball off the bat often exceeded 104 MPH, so the NCAA decided to institute the change.


Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/46882 ... RuHB/quote]

http://www.livestrong.com/article/46882 ... -softball/

To AI's point-These bats are still legal in ASA and PGF

Complaints from other schools prompted NCAA action. Bat MFGs pull their bats before they reach the three strike level.

First off, you are overlooking the point. "the Nike Bats that UCLA used prior to 2011(They no longer use) and the older (Easton?) bats that the University of Hawaii used" is still not specifying a bat model. And, as you know, those bats have not failed the definition of "hot" bats. AI hasn't named one bat model because no such model exists. We have his opinion.

Second, those bats to which you refer are not and were not ever available to the general public. Who cares what some illegal bat roller tells you to use to start with to make an illegal bat; the reason the other coaches were outraged and the NCAA took action was because it was well known that these particular bats were a "special" production line, and Candrea and others were at a disadvantage because THEY weren't getting the same bats available to THEM.

Yes, some tested above 98; up to 104. Those were confiscated, no longer exist, aren't publicly available. Every bat was taken from those teams after the postseason testing proved the facts. This is the same as painting an illegal bat with a legal bat's holo; the legal bat that it looks like isn't made illegal or hit by that apparent resemblance.

But AI doesn't want to know the truth, he wants to claim to KNOW without possession of any facts. I have repeatedly asked him to support with even one bat model what he keeps claiming exists, but he can't. So despite his continuing rhetoric with babble instead of facts or actual evidence, let me state:

1) There are no bats in ASA, NFHS or even his beloved PGF that meet the contractual definition of illegally hot for any approved softball agency.
2) No current bat model in ANY of those agencies using the ASA bat standard has ever tested in WSU lab tests with the appropriate number of individual model failures to be declared "hot" by any of those agencies, OR by NCAA; except those already and currently listed on the ASA Non-Approved Bat List, making them NOT usable in ASA, NFHS, or PGF play.
3) Without evidence to support that any agency KNOWS that an unsafe or otherwise "hot" bat is still on any approved bat list, AI's speculation that some ambulance chaser can (and will, ultimately) use that as a cause of action is pointless, unfounded, and even possibly actionable on it's own as defamatory and libelous.
4) Despite knowing he has no evidence to support any of his allegations, he continues to insist that to not agree with him and to KNOW like he does means others are ignoring facts (which he has yet to produce).

Okay, I'm done. No further response on the topic, he has no facts to refute any of what is stated above and throughout this thread, and his straw man efforts at circular proof are proven pointless.

But some one else give him a cracker. It is clear he needs one.

2005 Easton Stealth Speed- you need to reed Ump Steve- the bats that I mentioned are what brought the rule change. The bats were certainly available to the general public(although hawaii emptied out the warehouse)

[UmpSteve]

Model #?? There is no listing in ASA Approved Easton bat list nor any googled site thatappears to match or describe a 2005 SSR bat.

[AlwaysImprove]

Model #?? There is no listing in ASA Approved Easton bat list nor any googled site thatappears to match or describe a 2005 SSR bat.

"I can tell you that in the last three years, more than 40 percent of the bats (from the World Series) that we've tested in the lab have come back too high," Dee Abrahamson

[GIMNEPIWO]

Is this thread still going?
It is getting so muddled now you can hardly follow along.
UmpSteve, it was AZ that used the Nike bats that nobody could buy, not UCLA. Hawaii was not the only school using the Easton scn4b and scn6b models.
AI it appears that you are basing your argument on a premise that is not proven. The bats that are no longer on the current NCAA list are not missing because they failed tests, they are missing because the manufacturers didnt submit the bats to be on the list. Were they over the limit? probably but not shown in testing that led to their removal. They only submit recent models. Why would they care about approval for a bat that is a couple years old since they do not sell it anymore. I see Cal is still using last years Easton's. They must be hotter than the current line.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Are you calling me a 'muddler' ? .... Actually, my playing name was Mudder

[MTR]

You are regurgitating extremely old information from Livestrong that did the same? It is nothing new and of which apparently everyone were aware. Well, at least I thought everyone.

The NCAA was already at 98 mph since they adopted the ASA certification. All the talk about WSU is based on the point that is ASA's testing facility overseen by Dr. Lloyd Smith. Dr. Smith's lab is also the one which developed the non-electric BCT unit this is basically replacing the Easton model that was pure pass/fail and could only be used with a power source. And again, is nothing that isn't being done at most ASA tournaments for the past couple of years.

The Easton bat that was of concern in 2010 that was used by Hawaii, and Florida and GaTech and....well, point is many teams used these bats, was the Easton SCN4B which is an approved ASA bat. These bats were never tested by the NCAA, so the first thing that comes to my mind was the following question: Did you ever try thinking what made the bats hot? Think that they were altered like many of the NCAA baseball bats they found out of spec? If you ran into a travel ball or HS team that all used the same "hot" bat you would be accusing them of cheating and demanding they be thrown out of the tournament. But when it is a college team you are talking about how bad ASA is for still allowing those "hot" bats, even though they are tested the same as every other bat allowed by the NCAA.

The entire premise surrounding the UH bats is due to the complaints of Bama coach, Pat Murphy, who insists EVERYONE knew those bats were too hot, but like half the posts in this thread, there is absolutely nothing to substantiate his claims. Of course, Bama also used that same bat, but broke them all through use.

It seems that the presumed proof was that Easton did not submit them to the NCAA for their new list for the 2011 season. But why would they, the SCN4B was an old, out of production model.

[MTR]

Are you calling me a 'muddler' ? .... Actually, my playing name was Mudder

Then maybe your should head over to Gerrardstown on April 20th

[AlwaysImprove]

Is this thread still going?
It is getting so muddled now you can hardly follow along.
UmpSteve, it was AZ that used the Nike bats that nobody could buy, not UCLA. Hawaii was not the only school using the Easton scn4b and scn6b models.
AI it appears that you are basing your argument on a premise that is not proven. The bats that are no longer on the current NCAA list are not missing because they failed tests, they are missing because the manufacturers didnt submit the bats to be on the list. Were they over the limit? probably but not shown in testing that led to their removal. They only submit recent models. Why would they care about approval for a bat that is a couple years old since they do not sell it anymore. I see Cal is still using last years Easton's. They must be hotter than the current line.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

My premise is that NCAA was seeing 40% failures, on tests at WSU. They created a system to get rid of those bats. Those bats are still valid for ASA play. That does not make sense to me. Does it to you?

[kidcoach5]

Thanks for the information everyone on the strikes on bats, FYI My DD has been allowed to use the bats every game since being pulled.