Print

[swark]

Stuart, why the need to return the bats back to raw? Surely the bats have seeved their purpose during the testing. Sure, its an expensive sacrifice but the data is the goal of the exercise. Write a few bats off. Its not the end of the world.

Good question - one of the ideas I am playing with is doing two tests with the participants. The first is where the bats are covered, while the second is where they are back in their natural state. The idea is to see whether their perceptions of the bats' quality is influenced by their visual appeal; I want to see if the testers rate them the same way after they are able to see the difference in timber. We could do it the other way around (i.e. start natural and then cover up), but I think starting off blind is a better approach.

Nothing is in or out at this stage, as I am just trying to think through all possible options before we start. Nothing is worse than starting an experiment and then regretting not thinking it through properly.

[swark]

As said above, fibre scuff sheets would probably be the best way to go.

Would even a couple of sheets make the willow impossible to see? Most of the ones I have seen (and there could be others of course) are transparent.

[Kulli]

I'm sure CX cricket can be of assistance!

[AlRidd]

Would even a couple of sheets make the willow impossible to see? Most of the ones I have seen (and there could be others of course) are transparent.

These are what I mean by fibre scuff sheets. I think they would obscure the grains/colour sufficiently.

http://m.ebay.com.au/itm/222258021769?_mwBanner=1

[Kulli]

They are a nightmare to get off again through!

[edge]

Something like a crictech sheet would be perfect wouldn't it?

[GoodLeave]

How are you setting up the experiment Stuart? It just seems like getting all the bats covered up is going to be a faff and quite expensive. If the bats are all going to be tested in the same room, would a blindfold not suffice?

If you were going to do it like that, I'd suggest letting the "Guinea pigs" see the grains first, then blindfold.

[manno]

Blindfolded?? Lol

I can barely middle it staring a hole into the ball! You guys must be good!!!!

[swark]

I probably didn't explain this very well

The first stage is getting players to test each of the bats in a net facing a bowling machine. All identification is removed (i.e. stickers etc), and they then rate them on a number of five point scales (feel, rebound, acoustics etc). I am considering whether I also cover the blade and back, so that the players are not influenced by their visual perceptions of supposed performance. "Blinding" refers to the fact that the batsmen (and researcher) are unaware of which bat is which until after the testing is done. I agree with Manno that this first stage would be somewhat difficult with a blindfold ...

The second stage is where we undertaken the more scientific analysis to see if we can pick what factors actually differed in those bats that score better when compared to the worse performing ones. This would also be done 'blind' in terms of the researcher not knowing which bat was which, but as the tests would be undertaken by machine, their visual appearance wouldn't be a factor.

The suggestion of @edge looks very interesting, and I'll look into it. Fibre scuff sheets (thanks @AlRidd) also look slightly different to what I am used to, so they could be a possibility as well.

[manno]

If i were doing a similar test id be inclined to keep both testing (machine v player) very separate. The player tests would serve purely as an insite into the psychology of why we like bat 1 over bat 2. We know looking at this forum as an example that 10 different blokes might prefer 10 different bats just because we're all different. But id still be interested to see the results of players preferences in 3 tests -

1- Blacked out bats. Then....
2- The same blacked out bats, but each bat labelled (incorrectly ) for the testers to see, the grade/grains/maker. I realise this test becomes redundant if the players know the bats are labelled incorrectly.
3- Finally bats revealed

That would give the testees ample opportunity to choose 3 different bats as their #1 choice over the three tests. Keeping in mind ive already ruined the effectiveness of test 2 by mentioning it.

But i wouldn't allocate any real value in terms of performance comparison to this player test. That would be achieved by the repeatable machine tests done on each bat.

[manno]

I thought the aim of this testing would be to compare the properties of willow, not someones preference for low/mid/high or how a bat "feels" becasue again, reading these forums and all the difference of opinion, thats always going to be subjective and completely separate to how the willow actually performs. Thats all im interested in anyway, comparing the rebound quality between different grades/types of willow. Looking forward to seeing how this project evolves and likely to setup something myself to satisfy my own curiosities.

[manno]

I guess id still like to see both.

Pure performance tested mechanically. As well as testing human perception/pre-disposition (as i detailed). But i assumed Stuart would be blind testing perception based on grade and looks rather than profile type, at least thats the way i read the OP. As he states, bats of the same weight, profile and handle will be used. So comparing players perceptions of timber type rather than bat type. As you'd have difficulty hiding the profile but you can "blind" the testee from what a bat looks like. Which makes more sense to me. I also don't see comparing the "feel" if in reference to pickup and balance of identically weighted and profiled bats as particulay valuable, again, because we all might feel something quite different. For mine any subjectivity muddies the data but if Stuart wants to test comparing differently profiled bats or record subjective data its his choice, but i would argue thats an entirely different subject.