Topic: What if the idea of big bats is a myth? (Read 6264 times)

Psi · « **Reply #30 on:** December 30, 2019, 12:44:59 AM »

The recommendation for baseball bats is to go for fairly light weight with a low centre of mass. This would presumably correspond to a light weight cricket bat with a low middle. This enables you to swing it fast and leads to highest ball speed off the bat, according to the equations. If anyone is interested I will post the exact equations for ball speed in terms of the parameters of the bat...

Chompy9760 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 30, 2019, 01:08:57 AM »

Call me a science nerd, but I'm interested in the equations

brokenbat · « **Reply #32 on:** December 30, 2019, 01:14:52 AM »

First let�s define this �idea of big bats�. I think the idea is as follows:

1. Mishits go a little further
2. Hits right off the middle of the bat will travel the same distance as when a ball is middled from a �small bat� of same weight.

This is why when pros have moved to �bigger� bats they�ve stuck to their preferred weights (nobody has dropped down in weight, thinking the extra size will make up for reduction in weight).

So, no, it is not a myth. Mishits do go further, but �sweetspot ping� stays the same for the same weight.

InternalTraining · « **Reply #33 on:** December 30, 2019, 01:36:05 AM »

I wouldn't mind trying one in a game - a behemoth of a bat weighing only 2-10/2-11. The ones I have weigh 2-12 and up so that's a non-starter.

I"d do it for science. If any one wants to get rid of their 2-10/2-11 monster because bat police won't let them use one in a game, I'd happily take it off your hands.

Buzz · « **Reply #34 on:** December 30, 2019, 09:30:49 AM »

When I asked the original question, it was because I have been buying bats for 25 years and while the shapes have changed, the volume of wood on a 2-10 bat is basically the same.
Bats now have bigger edges, but are concaved rather than convex.
The likes of Barry Richards used a 2-3 or 2-4 bat. Of course they are going to be thinner.

But I don't believe the heavy bats Goochie and Botham used were, in terms of volume, any different to the bats today.

The point really is that bats are pressed better now.

Having said that, I don't believe there is any difference in performance from my first county bat to any bat I can get now.

I believe that the balls get hit further etc mainly because batsmen are much fitter and stronger, plus players practice better now and the boundaries are much smaller.

Moaning about bats is a red herring.

Wozaboxa · « **Reply #35 on:** December 30, 2019, 09:52:51 AM »

Quote from: Buzz on December 30, 2019, 09:30:49 AM

When I asked the original question, it was because I have been buying bats for 25 years and while the shapes have changed, the volume of wood on a 2-10 bat is basically the same.
Bats now have bigger edges, but are concaved rather than convex.
The likes of Barry Richards used a 2-3 or 2-4 bat. Of course they are going to be thinner.

But I don't believe the heavy bats Goochie and Botham used were, in terms of volume, any different to the bats today.

The point really is that bats are pressed better now.

Having said that, I don't believe there is any difference in performance from my first county bat to any bat I can get now.

I believe that the balls get hit further etc mainly because batsmen are much fitter and stronger, plus players practice better now and the boundaries are much smaller.

Moaning about bats is a red herring.

I agree

I think the stigma of not playing "proper" shots has evaporated too, When I first started playing in my teens I hoiked a six over cow corner and one of the senior men lambasted me in the changing room, saying it was slogging etc...

I'd say that has all but disappeared now and as such batsmen are evolving their "Slog" shots, couple that with fitness, better training and the more well pressed sticks, limited overs crickets, strike rate obsession and it's all culminated in what we have today.

edge · « **Reply #36 on:** December 30, 2019, 10:22:26 AM »

To play devil's advocate, I think bats definitely are bigger in volume these days - kiln drying has definitely been a change from the old days. The difference isn't as big as many make out though because bats are also mostly heavier. Anecdotally, most clubbies seem to use around 2lb9 these days? Still light but 20+ years ago I'm sure it would have been lighter, maybe someone with more experience (ahem) could chime in.

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 30, 2019, 10:27:25 AM »

Quote from: Wozaboxa on December 30, 2019, 09:52:51 AM

I agree

I think the stigma of not playing "proper" shots has evaporated too, When I first started playing in my teens I hoiked a six over cow corner and one of the senior men lambasted me in the changing room, saying it was slogging etc...

I'd say that has all but disappeared now and as such batsmen are evolving their "Slog" shots, couple that with fitness, better training and the more well pressed sticks, limited overs crickets, strike rate obsession and it's all culminated in what we have today.

The stigma hasn�t evaporated at all. A slogger is still called a slogger.. the difference is the formats have all been moved to win lose so you need and produce more sloggers. There is no need anymore (or diminishing anyway) for traditional players as the game requires 250+ st least most games, if not 300+ now

edge · « **Reply #38 on:** December 30, 2019, 10:31:33 AM »

Here's an example of my own - the first bat I picked out for myself when I was 15, and my current favourite. Both are close in weight (2lb11), and the old stick has perhaps a smidge more concaving. Loads of wood in both but the new one is definitely bigger.

edge · « **Reply #39 on:** December 30, 2019, 10:33:49 AM »

Quote from: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on December 30, 2019, 10:27:25 AM

The stigma hasn�t evaporated at all. A slogger is still called a slogger.. the difference is the formats have all been moved to win lose so you need and produce more sloggers. There is no need anymore (or diminishing anyway) for traditional players as the game requires 250+ st least most games, if not 300+ now

It's changed at least a little, I've only ever played win/lose but still notice it even short term. 10 years ago I remember putting one over the top in the first over and getting a bollocking off the skipper, these days everyone loves it.

Buzz · « **Reply #40 on:** December 30, 2019, 10:38:53 AM »

@edge does the older bat have a longer blade, are they the same width?
Even so, those bats allow for natural variations in willow moisture content.

edge · « **Reply #41 on:** December 30, 2019, 10:44:25 AM »

Quote from: Buzz on December 30, 2019, 10:38:53 AM

@edge does the older bat have a longer blade, are they the same width?
Even so, those bats allow for natural variations in willow moisture content.

Longer blade but slightly narrower width, so about even on that regard. Do agree I can't account for natural variation with only two bats, but I think it's a good example - both are very big bats for their time but the size difference is still clear.

Ajdal · « **Reply #42 on:** December 30, 2019, 11:36:53 AM »

Lower density bats tend to perform considerably better compared to a higher density bat which has very similar grain structure, pressing and weight etc. The really low density ones have a very different feel to them as you almost never feel any jerk in the hands wherever the balls hits the blade.. No science to back it up, just my experience in the middle with a lot of different bats. You'd almost never see a professional(international) player's bat nowadays that's not low density.

Even international players' keeley bats are very low density having seen 3 or 4 in flesh - shop keeleys and the 'pro' keeleys that float around here from time to time are no match to actual international player keeley made bats in terms of size. GM player edition bats are also an example of how different a player bat is in terms of density compared to even their LE bats.

Psi · « **Reply #43 on:** December 30, 2019, 08:01:52 PM »

Quote from: Chompy9760 on December 30, 2019, 01:08:57 AM

Call me a science nerd, but I'm interested in the equations

OK. Looks like you're the only other science nerd on here, but here goes : the answer is.....

42.

But seriously, The equation is :

v2a=v2b-(v2b-v1-w1d) (1+CoR)m1 I1/(m2 I1+m1 I1 +m2m1d^2)

Where all the variables are defined in https://photos.app.goo.gl/a6EkfBxtTEzvcSJK7

It allows for a rotating bat with moment of inertia I1, a ball with mass m2 and bat with mass m1.

It requires no F=MA, just conservation of momentum and energy (allowing some energy to be lost through the coefficient of restitution CoR)

It does seem to make intuitive sense. The main issue is perhaps that the whole thing depends on CoR (the 'pinginess'), and this is an unknown function of pressing, density, thickness, etc.

Psi · « **Reply #44 on:** December 30, 2019, 08:04:20 PM »

... For anyone seriously interested in this, I would recommend the Bahill book. It's not very carefully written, but seems correct and highly relevant to cricket as well as baseball

Author Topic: What if the idea of big bats is a myth? (Read 6264 times)

Psi

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Chompy9760

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

brokenbat

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

InternalTraining

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Buzz

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Wozaboxa

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

edge

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

ProCricketer1982

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

edge

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

edge

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Buzz

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

edge

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Ajdal

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Psi

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Psi

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?