Heavy Hitters: Sporting-Goods Firms Battle a Crackdown On Aluminum Bats

The Wall Street Journal
April 30, 1996

By Stefan Fatsis

At Johnny Rosenblatt Stadium in Omaha, Neb., they have never seen a slugfest quite like last year’s College World Series. In 14 games, the teams pounded 48 home runs; the previous record was 29. Some homers sailed over the bleachers, 30 feet high, into a parking lot 450 feet from home plate.

So was it the strong tail wind? Or an exceptional crop of hitters? Or was it the state-of-the-art aluminum bats, which have revolutionized amateur baseball and sparked controversies over everything from the integrity of the game to the safety of its young players?

Aluminum bats, banned in the pros but widely used by amateurs, quickly became popular after they were introduced in the 1970s because they rarely break or need to be replaced. But they now are far more potent, as manufacturers use more durable metal, stretched more thinly, to enable hitters to swing faster and make better contact. Such features make dramatic selling points: In one ad, Worth Inc. promises its Copperhead model will “make your competitors’ blood run cold.” Easton Sports Inc. calls its Reflex bat its “most devastating model ever.”

The question is, have the bats become too devastating? In the wake of the college series, along with some serious injuries to players clobbered by speeding line drives, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is setting new standards for aluminum bats. That has sent manufacturers of bats and aluminum on an offensive to determine who will control the limits of technology in a game played by millions.

The stakes are significant. The wholesale market for baseball and softball bats has boomed 70% since 1987, to a projected $85 million this year, with metal bats accounting for nearly 90% of sales, according to the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, a North Palm Beach, Fla., trade group. Once touted for their low cost, some high-end aluminum bats now retail for more than $150.

Manufacturers have aggressively marketed the new bats to schools, offering thousands of free bats to athletic departments and thousands of dollars in direct payments to coaches. With such inducements at the top end of the market, the industry hopes to get more players — from Little Leaguers to weekend warriors — to buy its merchandise.

But tough standards from the NCAA or other groups would drastically curb business and stifle innovation, manufacturers say. “If the game isn’t as exciting because the equipment isn’t as exciting, then you have less-excited customers,” says Jess Heald, president of Worth, based in Tullahoma, Tenn. “I’ve got my whole business at stake.”

Easton spokesman Jim Darby says: “Here are a bunch of yahoos who sit there and say, `We’ve got to do something.’ About what?”

The bat companies have been joined by Aluminum Co. of America in attacking NCAA standards, maintaining that no evidence exists that high-tech aluminum bats are dangerous, and complaining that the NCAA has never stated what it hopes to achieve through regulation.

The warnings have been coupled with legal threats. Last fall, Edwin Drake, a lawyer for Pittsburgh-based Alcoa, wrote the NCAA that the company was forced “to consider all of our options, both legal and commercial.” Easton also has made clear its concerns. “I’ve got a warehouse full of a quarter of a million bats, and if [NCAA officials] say this season you can’t sell those bats, I’d have a problem with that,” says Larry Carlson, a vice president at Easton, based in Van Nuys, Calif.

The most significant advance in metal bats came two years ago when Alcoa provided its extra-strong “C405” alloy, pioneered for use in the Boeing 777, to the baseball industry. The new bats were introduced during last year’s college playoffs. Balls flew out of the park, and the NCAA wanted to know why.

A New York University physics professor performed tests, paid for by the sporting-goods trade group, and the NCAA in December set a maximum “bat performance factor” of 1.15 for the current season. That means a bat is legal only if a ball does not rebound more than 15% faster off a stationary bat than off a wall. (Wood bats tested with a rating of 0.91 to 0.98.) Some of the bats used in the 1995 series were found to exceed the limits.

Some engineers call the test inconclusive because bats aren’t stationary in games. What matters, they say, is the speed of the ball after hitting a swung bat. A well-struck ball can fly off an aluminum bat as fast as 120 miles per hour; the comparable figure for a wood bat is around 105 mph.

The new bats have wreaked havoc with the record books. While college players always post higher hitting statistics than the pros, this season the 50th-ranked hitter in NCAA Division I has a .413 batting average; 20 years ago, in the early aluminum era, it was .390. All seven teams in the Southwest Conference have batting averages over .300 this year; in 1982, none of the eight teams then in the conference achieved that feat. On the pitching side, the best team earned-run average in Division I belongs to Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, at 2.59 runs allowed per nine innings; in the pre-aluminum era 25 years ago, the team ERA leader, Pennsylvania State University in State College, allowed just 1.32 runs per nine innings.

Much has changed besides hits and runs. Coaches say the bigger sweet spot (or area of maximum impact) and lighter weight allow batters to connect on inside pitches, eliminating one of the best areas for a pitcher. The light bats also enable hitters to catch up with fastballs that otherwise would sizzle by. Pitchers are forced to throw more curve balls, which can lead to arm trouble — particularly among younger players.

Meanwhile, infielders have a tougher time chasing ground balls; college shortstops and second basemen are now routinely positioned four feet into the outfield grass. First and third basemen can’t stand too close to home plate for fear of hot smashes. And top college players routinely face a tough transition to wood bats in pro ball, the reason some programs use wood for practice and fall play.

Many coaches believe the offensive tilt has gone too far. “We’ve destroyed the game of baseball,” says Dean Kreiner, head coach at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant. In 1994 and 1995, coaches in the Mid-American Conference, where Central Michigan plays, voted to switch to wood bats made by Worth. It never happened. First, the presidents of the 10 conference schools said they were concerned about the cost of adopting wood — even though Worth offered to donate 15 dozen free wood bats, as well as five dozen aluminum bats for nonconference games, to each school. Then Easton, which had two conference schools under contract and feared an incursion by wood, offered to supply the conference with about $100,000 in equipment annually. (Easton doesn’t make wood bats.) The offer was accepted.

Aluminum doesn’t automatically generate cost savings for schools. According to Rex Bradley, who oversees the amateur-baseball market for Hillerich & Bradsby Co.’s Louisville Slugger division, it would cost no more to outfit a college team with wood bats than with aluminum. While wood bats break far more frequently, they would cost the schools only about $20 each, compared with about $125 for standard aluminum bats.

So why not switch? In the wood era, bat companies saved their best ash for the pros while colleges typically received inferior wood that splintered more often. That would probably happen again.

But far more important is the fact that many schools don’t pay for metal bats. Louisville Slugger and Easton donate bats and other equipment to nearly 150 NCAA member schools. Aluminum bats have “helped sports programs stay within budget,” says Jim Dietz, head coach at San Diego State University. By contrast, most manufacturers don’t give away wood bats, even to the pros. Marty Archer, general manager of Louisville Slugger, says: “It’s more important we promote aluminum bats, because that’s what the amateur baseball and softball players are using.”

Meanwhile, many coaches have personal reasons to stand by aluminum. As part of the equipment deals, they can receive payments from bat companies ranging from a few thousand dollars at smaller schools to tens of thousands of dollars at top programs.

“I don’t see any problem with [the new bats] whatsoever,” says Mississippi State University coach Ron Polk, who is under contract to Easton for an amount he declines to disclose. “I’m just very concerned for the bat companies that have been very good to college baseball that they’re not hurt financially.”

The NCAA permits payments to coaches, but some believe they create a conflict of interest. Bill Thurston, head coach at Amherst College in Amherst, Mass., and rules editor of the NCAA’s baseball-rules committee, opposes the deals. Unlike sneakers or sweat shirts, he says, athletic equipment affects how the sport is played, as well as safety issues. “We’re trying to control the integrity of the game, and we’re not having a lot of cooperation from coaches who . . . are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them,” he says.

The companies insist there is nothing wrong with their promotional efforts, and say their generosity has helped many schools. They are concerned about the NCAA’s drive toward tougher regulation. While colleges form only a small segment of the bat industry, NCAA standards would be followed by many other organizations.

How big are the stakes? Hillerich & Bradsby, in Louisville, Ky., and Easton, both closely held, say aluminum bats account for more than half of their annual sales, which are around $100 million for each company.

The safety issue is especially contentious. The newest aluminum bat is “a lethal weapon almost,” says Rayner Noble, head coach at the University of Houston. In March, Danny Crawford, a pitcher on Mr. Noble’s team, was struck in the mouth by a line drive off an aluminum bat. One of Mr. Crawford’s teeth was later found in the grass behind the pitcher’s mound.

Bat companies say there is no evidence that aluminum bats are more dangerous than wood. “We have no indication that there’s any real safety issue at all,” says John Cramer, a lawyer for Easton. “I’m not aware of any injury reports or statistical increase” in injuries attributable to metal bats, he says.

Still, the perception of a problem is growing. Injuries are “more likely with hot aluminum bats because the ball just comes off that bat faster,” says Jerry Kindall, head coach for 24 years at the University of Arizona in Tucson, whose older players practice with wood bats to prepare for professional ball. “Am I concerned about their safety? Of course I am. That’s why these regulations should be in place.” Mr. Kindall is under contract to Easton, but he adds: “I think we would all prefer to go back to the wooden bat.”

Before it establishes permanent standards, the NCAA will gather more data. It recently asked an engineer to develop a proposal to study bat performance and how quickly players can react to batted balls.

The NCAA also hopes to defuse criticism from bat companies that it has focused on regulating bats but not balls. The NCAA is expected to enact limits soon on the liveliness of baseballs used during regular-season games. The current limits apply only to playoffs, and testing after last year’s series found that the ball, supplied by Chicago-based Wilson Sporting Goods Co., did exceed the standard. Easton says the livelier balls contributed to the home-run barrage; Wilson and the NCAA disagree.

Perhaps the most vexing question for the NCAA is where to draw the line. What bat is too fast, too light or too strong? Some coaches say the best solution is to make aluminum bats behave more like wood ones. Their suggestions: increase bat weight to slow down batters’ swings; outlaw light-colored aluminum bats, especially white ones, which can obscure the ball in fielders’ eyes; and thicken bat walls to reduce the “trampoline effect” when balls rebound off increasingly tensile aluminum bats.

Tougher standards wouldn’t be unprecedented, but neither would legal action by manufacturers. In 1994, Demarini Sports Inc., a Hillsboro, Ore., softball-bat maker, sued the Amateur Softball Association for $100 million after the group banned its “double-walled” bat. Demarini argued that the ban violated antitrust laws by unreasonably discriminating against a product. The case was settled without payment when the ASA agreed to establish test-based standards. The company also settled a similar lawsuit with the United States Slo-Pitch Softball Association.

John Black, a lawyer for the NCAA, says the group’s primary goals are to protect the safety of its 22,000 players and the “sound tradition” of the sport. Mr. Black believes metal bats can be regulated without conflict with the bat companies. “The NCAA does not expect any legal difficulties with the bat manufacturers,” he says. “In the event there is litigation, that never has deterred the NCAA from doing what it thinks is right.”

Other groups are watching. Brad Rumble, baseball rules editor for the National Federation of State High School Associations, which oversees 14,000 varsity baseball teams, says the group has received several letters concerning the speed of batted balls. At the youth level, Little League Baseball Inc. allows aluminum but prohibits white bats. Spokesman Lance Van Auken says the group has heard from parents and coaches worried about aluminum bats.

The manufacturers don’t seem daunted. Easton and Louisville Slugger will introduce new aluminum models at this year’s College World Series, which begins May 31. And Alcoa has supplied its next generation of aluminum alloy to manufacturers for testing. Expected on the market in two years, this promises companies the hottest bat yet, says Stephen Cramer, an Alcoa marketing vice president. How hot? “We don’t want them to tell the NCAA about it just yet.”