Weighing The Evidence: Bat Weights Over Time

[trsent]

What at interesting post from the MEARS forum, here is a link, but I'll cut and paste the post below the link:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/427155/message/1139358579/Weighing+The+Evidence-++Bat+Weights+Over+Time

-----------------------------------------------------

Weighing The Evidence: Bat Weights Over Time

February 7 2006 at 4:29 PM Dave Grob (davegrob1@aol.com) Dave Grob (Login davegrob1 (http://www.network54.com/Profile/davegrob1))In response to some e-mails I have received in reference to MEARS policy on the grading of bats with respect to bat weights and range of acceptable variances, I have asked Dave Bushing to gather some of his examples of documented side written bats and other data points that will let you see where we are coming from on this issue.

In the mean time, I thought I would share this with you. I contacted the Baseball Research Center at the University of Massachusetts (Lowell-Department of Engineering) to get their take on this subject. I received a rather prompt and informative response form Mr. Patrick Drane on behalf Dr. Sherwood, the Center’s Director.

My question to Dr. Sherwood was:

Dr. Sherwood,

I came across some of your work and that of Mr. Drane while doing an on-line search. I am a baseball researcher and have been looking at factory records of Hall of Fame players, with a note on the weights listed in the shipping records. Some have offered that the current bat weight must be the same today as it was listed some 30-40 years ago.

I contend that depending on how the bat was finished or how it has been stored, that a variance of 2 ounces either way would not be beyond the realm of possibility. Do you have an opinion on this matter or could you point me to any research data or other readings.

Respectfully Yours,

LTC Dave Grob

This is the response I received:


Dave,

Dr. Sherwood asked me to respond to your question. I have attached a file of some calculations of some average expected changes in weight due to changes in equilibrium moisture content based on conditions of where the bat was shipped from and where the bat is currently being stored. Based on the current storage location, the weight of the bat should be dictated by the equilibrium moisture content which is a condition dictated by temperature and humidity. The calculations that I performed are based on a table in the “Wood Handbook, Wood as a Engineering Material”. Table 12-1 identifies the Equilibrium Moisture Content (EMC) as a function of City and Month. It says that it is based on 30 or more years of averages from government climate centers.
To know how much a bat’s weight should have changed, you would need to know where and when the bat was weighted for shipping and where and when you are weighing the bat again. You would also need to know the EMC for that location and date which could be gathered from climate data, knowing temperature and humidity. Scales may not have been completely accurate back then so I would not rely on the original shipping weight to any more than the nearest ounce.

As for your 2 ounce change possibility, you can see that it is definitely possible, but typically you would only see changes like that for bats that were shipped to a much dryer location in the Southwest.

I hope that this helps. Please let me know if you need anything more.

Patrick Drane
Assistant Director
Baseball Research Center
University of Massachusetts Lowell
------------------------------------------

What I found very interesting was the data contained in the Excel Spreadsheet (please e-mail me if you would like a copy). The data is based on a 34 ounce bat that would have been shipped from one city at certain time of the year and weighed in another at another time in the year shows both weight gains and losses. Although they list a number of shipping cities, I will give you some of the data up front for bats being shipped from Louisville in both April and September.

Louisville APR 34 oz
Phoenix June 31.3 oz
Miami September 34.3oz
Chicago June 33.6 oz

Louisville SEPT 34 oz
Phoenix June 30.5 oz
Miami September 33.4 oz
Chicago June 32.8oz

My point in posting this information is to share with you that a bats weight is only one of variables to consider when trying to make an informed purchase decision. I hope you find this helpful and interesting…I know I have.

Dave Grob


This message has been edited by bridgettest on Feb 7, 2006 4:35 PM

[byergo]

Pretty wide variation!

[CollectGU]

Additional information provided on this topic by John Taube and Dave Bushing. I think that they have provided enough evidence of variations from both personal experiences AND professional opinion that should have Jim Caravallo rethink the following statement made by him - " The loss of two ounces on the bat in question is outside of what I consider a normal tolerance for change. ". Given the information provided, I would say that just the opposite is true:

Bat Weight research

February 8 2006 at 9:28 PM Dave Bushing (dbushing1@aol.com) Dave Bushing (Login DaveBushing1 (http://www.network54.com/Profile/DaveBushing1))

Response to Weighing The Evidence: Bat Weights Over Time (http://www.network54.com/Forum/427155/message/1139358579/Weighing+The+Evidence-++Bat+Weights+Over+Time)Comparative Analysis on The Accuracy on Bat Weights.


Recently there has been some healthy discussion on the variance of bat weights when compared to what is recorded in the shipping records within the hobby. This is a healthy topic for debate as it highlights the need for individuals to show what the basis for their opinion or beliefs is based on. Various individuals will have to establish for themselves what their own metrics are for reasonable and acceptable variances. I thought I would take a few moments to share with you what sort of things I have seen and have considered in forming my own opinion. Consider these side written H&B factory returned game bats as well as some off brands and lathe bats as well:

1. 1932 side written Hanna bat, hand turned, Lloyd Waner model 16, 34” with side writing “31 oz. Al Cuccinello 9-15-32” It’s current weight is 29.7 oz. (1.9 oz lighter than recorded)

2. Wally Moses H&B 1934-43 label, 35”, side written; “34 ½ oz. Wally Moses, 4-13-40 Philadelphia, Am. Lea.” Its current weight is 37.8 oz. (3.2 oz heavier than recorded)

3. H&B game bat, center brand stamp with no player on end, 1921-31 label, side written “37 oz, T.H.Payne Co 6-24-23” It’s current weight is 35.7 oz. (1.9 oz. lighter than recorded)

4. Hughie Jennings lathe bat, H&B center brand stamped, side written “46 oz. Hugh Jennings, 4-28-22” It’s current weight is 43.7 oz. (2.9 oz. lighter than recorded)

5. Al Simmons lathe bat, no center stamp, and side written “38 oz. Al Simmons 3-2-27 Philadelphia Amer.” its current weight is 39 oz. ( 1 oz heavier than recorded)

6. Lou Gehrig lathe bat, no center stamp, side written “ 37 ½ oz. Lou Gehrig 5-13-26” current weight is 40.3 oz. ( almost 3 oz. heavier than recorded)

7. Babe Ruth 1932 lathe bat, no center stamp, side written “38-39 oz. Babe Ruth 5-11-32 New York Yankees” current weight is 35.1 oz. (3-4 oz. lighter than recorded)

John Taube of PSA supplied the following current bat specs that he stated he grabbed at random.

Gary Sheffield Sam bat, without tape, marked weight (32 oz ) actual weight (32.3 oz.) The closed bat to listed weight that he grabbed.
Manny Ramirez, 2001 Rawlings, marked weight (33 oz.) actual weight (31.4 oz)
Rafael Palmerio, X Bat, marked weight (31 oz.) actual weight (33.2 oz.)
Vladimir Guerrero, X Bat, marked weight (33 oz.) actual weight (34.1 oz.)
E. Wilson, Sam Bat, marked weight (31.1 oz.) actual weight (32 oz.)

John stated, with regards to current bats, “ we see this inaccuracy on marked weights on all current model bats, more often than not, the listed or marked weights do not match the actual weights, sometimes by several ounces.”

We all can understand the difference in listed or marked weights and current weights on older bats given various factors such as storage, climate, or archaic weight measuring apparatus. But how does one account for such inaccuracy on modern bats given the latest digital technology? How is it that bat dealer John Taube states that most of the modern bats he has examined do not match marked weights? Our records indicate that any number of current issue bats do not match the marked weights and are in complete concurrence with John Taube on this issue as is he with regards to weights on the older side written bats that I have offered.

My point in all this is not to say that someone is wrong and I am right. Rather to point out that while it might be more convenient to deal in absolutes, historical and current data does not afford us this luxury. My advice to collectors today is what it has been for years, buy the items you are comfortable with based on what you know and what you can be shown about it.

David Bushing

[Birdbats]

I just want to thank everyone who has "weighed in" on this topic. All of the posts (on this and other threads) regarding the weight changes of bats and the conditions that cause those changes has been very informative. This is GUF at its best.

Jeff
http://www.birdbats.com

[JimCaravello]

Folks - this has been a very interesting discussion. My experience in weighing bats from this period is still very definitive - the bats I have weighed are dead on with the shipping record weights. Dead on meaning within .1 or .2 ounces on a digital scale. There is no question that wood will change weight. I am sticking with my comments based on my experience. I am not the end all expert in this area and no one is, to be quite honest.

LET'S KEEP IN MIND WHY I POSTED......I am not saying anyone is correct or wrong. DISCLOSE THE INFO I HAVE DISCLOSED - not just the weight - but everything else I disclosed in my post about this particular Mathews bat. Yes - I still feel that 2 ounces is outside of the tolerable range. I would personally not buy a bat from the 60's that weighed more or less than 2 or more ounces from what was indicated in Factory Records. Others may feel comfortable with this. If someone else feels differently in aucthenticating bats that have this weight differential - that's great - but DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION.

Let me tell you a little story - within the last two years, there was a really nice looking George Brett bat that a collector was trying to sell. The bat had great use and markings. The only problem with the Brett bat was that it weighed something like 28 ounces and was well off of what Brett ordered from Louisville Slugger. The bat was sent to John Taube and in his letter, John indicated the weight differential in his letter - but he felt the bat's markings and use were consistent with Brett. Let me repeat this - JOHN DISCLOSED WHAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT INFO ON THE BAT REGARDING THE WEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL. The bat had sold twice before it was sent to John for something like $3,000. Both purchasers returned the bat because of the weight. After John issued the letter, the same seller could not find any takers over $2,000 and I don't know if he has even sold it to date. Moral of the story - Disclosure caused the value of the bat to decrease and two savvy game used collectors decided it was not the quality bat they wanted in their collection.

All I am saying is that a COA - or Opinion Letter should include all facts surrounding a bat that are available to the person that is issuing that letter. The purchaser can then decide what to pay for that bat.

If anyone has an issue with my opinion on weights as outlined above - that is fine! I just know I have weighed a lot of bats from this period and I would personally not buy a bat that was two or more ounces off of the shipping record weight - not to mention this was a team indexed order and the bats grain and finish do not match what Eddie was ordering and using during this time frame. Jim

[ghostkid]

I agree that this discussion of bat weights has been very informative and appreciate how everyone has shared their opinion in a very respectful manner. Thank you Jim Caravello for opening up this discussion. At the very least, I believe more emphasis will be given to the weight of a bat when considering the liklihood that any given bat is a true gamer. This is a good thing, as the future of the hobby will become even stronger as more information becomes available. It's okay to have differing opinions and each collector should decide for themselves what it takes to be confident a given bat is truly a gamer.

I see so many posts on this forum about game used jerseys - its now nice to see some bat collectors speaking up. Its a great hobby and I feel certain that it will continue to grow as more information becomes available...

Kevin Kasper

[byergo]

Isn't it true that there is a natural variation in bats anyway? Perhaps because of wood/cut/etc... If I tell LS to make me 50 bats that are 36" long and 35 ounces how many of those bats will be EXACTLY 36/35?

[MSpecht]

Hi--

It has been my experience in watching the H & B manufacturing process and talking with the craftsmen on the line that, at the time the bats leave the factory, they are bery precise in the weight and length dimensions. The factory records contain not only many examples of orders to the half inch and half ounce, but numerous exapmles of orders to the quarter inch and quarter ounce.

Thatr being said, i agree that weight is probably one of the least concerns when authenticating a professional model game used bat, although the statement that "it is common knowledge among collectors that bats can vary up to 5 ounces..." is pretty far overstated in my experience.

The original point that opened this thresd, however, is that whatever match to factory records a bat has, or whatever deviations from factory records it contains (assuming that the authenticator has access to factory records),all should be identified and disclosed by the authenticator and/or seller in order for the potential bidder/buyer to make an informed decision on how much money to spend, or even whether to make the purchase at all. That is called 'Full Disclosure," "Truth in Advertising," or just old fashioned "Integrity."

Good Luck in future collecting.

Mike

[trsent]

Mike, you point is valid, but what you forgot to call it is:

"Let the advertiser receive less money because they advertised the item to the public honestly, therefore, the public will pay less because the bat has lost weight over time and the seller wants to be upfront about this so they will sleep well at night."

Good luck! ;)

[ChrisCavalier]

Hello Everyone-

I feel compelled at this point to add my “opinion” to this discussion.

The way I see it, the authentication process is about determining the “probability” that an item is, in the case of this discussion, “game used”. Regarding these probabilities, in my estimation, the only way to get to 100% certainty that an item you acquire is used by a player is if you personally see the player use the item and then have the player personally give the item to you. Anything less than that will give you less than 100% certainty.

To elaborate on this further, there may be situations where you may feel you are close to 100% certain the item was game used. For example, you may acquire an item from a friend who said they got an item directly from a player and that they personally witnessed the item in use. In this example, your opinion of the person’s integrity who is giving you the item may allow you to feel close to 100% certain the item is game used. However, the only person who is 100% certain is the person who actually witnessed the item being used and was able to personally witness the trail of ownership to them. In my opinion, once it leaves that person, no other person can get to 100% certainty. Subsequent owners may feel they are close to 100% certain but they can never get to 100% certainty.

Thus, when items are authenticated by third parties, I believe the authenticator’s role is to provide the prospective buyer with data to help the buyer make a determination as to the probability that an item was, in this case, game used. Factors such as side-writing on bats, letters from teams or players, etc. will help increase the probability that an item is game-used. However, once again, the buyer in the secondary market can only use these data points to help them make a determination as to the “probability” that the item was used by a player. For example, while letters from players highly increase the probability that an item was used them, we have seen situations where the player may have been mistaken about using an item or relied on marketing company to provide them with “game used” items to sign that may have left room for error. Thus, while these situations can allow us to feel it is highly probable an item was used by the player they, once again, cannot get us to 100% certainty.

To go back to the point of this discussion, I believe the initial point being made is that if there is a difference in the weight of a bat in relation to the factory records, it should be disclosed in the authentication process so the buyer can make their own determination as to whether or not they are comfortable with the “probability” that the item was game used. Some people might be okay with more variation than others. In addition, a weight differential, when combined with other variables as in the Mathews bat example, may affect a person’s opinion of the likelihood that a particular item is game used. Thus, it is the responsibility of the authenticator to disclose that information so the buyer can make an informed decision and determine, in their mind, the probability that an item was game used.

To illustrate this, I will give an example from my personal experience. I once questioned an authentication firm regarding a bat that I felt was much lighter than what a player typically ordered according to Louisville Slugger factory records. Notably, the certification document did not include any reference to weight variation relative to the Louisville Slugger records. In addition to a reference that their experience tells them they cannot base a decision on (in this case) limited orders found in Louisville’s ledgers, the authentication firm’s primary response was that (and this is in writing) “It is well known and documented in the hobby that bats can loose up to 5 ounces from the time they have left the factory”. Well, even though I am not convinced this is “well known” in the hobby, think about what that statement means.

If we accept this as a blanket statement, without regard to specific factors of a specific bat, weight will almost never be a consideration in the authentication process. Specifically, given the sheer improbability of finding more than 5 ounce variations from factory records, under the logic of that statement weight will virtually never be a factor. I am not saying whether or not this particular bat was game used. What I am saying is that the disclosure of that information, when viewed in conjunction with other variables, has the potential to impact a buyer’s decision as to whether or not they will buy on item (i.e., their opinion of the probability that the item was game used) or how much they are willing to pay. This is clearly substantiated in Jim’s example of the 28 ounce Brett bat.

I hope Kevin’s comment that he believes more emphasis will be given in the future to the weight of the bat in helping to determine if the bat is a true gamer is correct and statements like “It is well known and documented in the hobby that bats can loose up to 5 ounces from the time they have left the factory” won’t be used by authenticators to prevent them from divulging weight variances in the authentication process. Weight differentials, especially when coupled with other variables, are critical pieces of information that can affect a prospective buyer’s opinion as to whether or not they think an item was game used.

I would love to hear any other thoughts on this topic.

Sincerely,
Christopher Cavalier

[josports]

nice post good information.