How "game used" do you like your bats?

[Greenbaumer]

An interesting question I'd like to post to the boards. Do you still want a game used bat if it was not used for a hit?

For instance, in recent memory I have had the chance to purchase both a Troy Tulowitzki game used bat and a Carlos Gonzalez. In both cases, Tulowitzki went 0-5 and Carlos Gonzalez went 0-7 on the given day the bats were said to have been used. Naturally, I don't want the bat.

Does this matter to you?

[Birdbats]

Just because they had 0-fers the days they broke the bats doesn't mean they didn't also use the same bats for a week or two prior. That 0-5 bat might have been used for a HR two games earlier.

What I find most interesting is your perspective on the subject. Until MLB authentication, it was pretty tough (if not impossible) to know anything about a particular bat's use. I have a Musial rookie-era bat. For all I know, he may have gone hitless using it and broke it on a weak grounder to the pitcher. Doesn't change the way I feel about it because it's still a Musial rookie-era bat.

Granted, there might be a premium in value if you have proof the bat was used for a hit, especially a significant one. But to me, the value is in the use. If a guy gets a bunt single, that really doesn't make the bat more desirable to me than one with which he flies out to the track three times. It's special because the player used it.

Guess I'd turn the question around to you: Would you still want a Willie Mays bat if you were certain he used it, but didn't get any hits with it? A Babe Ruth bat?

[Greenbaumer]

BirdBats - This was the exact response I was hoping for. I agree the bat could have been used in a game previously but I feel that a player uses so many bats per season, I'd love to know he had a meaningful play with it. I am new to collecting game used bats, I have a Bichette from 1993 that I have no idea what it was used for. My other two bats were purchased over the last two days. One was used for a three run HR, and the other was used for a bases clearing triple that ended as an inside the park HR on a bad throw. My point is, the bats were used to make significant plays. Obviously a Ruth bat is on top of everyone's wish list. Now that we do have MLB Authentication on almost everything the player touches, I'd prefer a bat that has authentication of a HR, big hit, or even a hit or two in a game.

I have yet to purchase a Tulowitzki bat, the 4-5 I have come across have all happened to come in hitless game. Although I love Tulowitzki and am dying to get a game used bat of his, I would rather spend the same $300+ on a bat he his a HR or a double with, as opposed to the one he went 0-5 with and SO 3 times.

Just my opinion, interested in others.

[soxbats]

Green, great topic and great perspective from a new collector. I come from the other end of the spectrum, collector for 20 years and I have handled well over a 1000 red sox bats. I think MLB authentication is great, but if you are trying to match bats to actual hits, I would rely only on a photo match. In my limited experience the use date in the database is often a collection date bearing little relation to the time last used. For example, I was offered a bat of a red sox player coded as used in the 2007 ws by the database. I went and looked at every at bat for that player and it was clear that he never used that bat in ws play. Could it have been used in bp, yes absolutely.

Another example. I was offered a 2004 ws bat from a red sox player and in my attempt to photomatch, i figured out thAt during the playoffs and ws he actually was using 4 different bats, without cracking any of them.

The one rule on bat use is, there is no rule. Players do all kinds of goofy things. Some will use a bat for a day, others will use it for a month off and on. I often chuckle when I read people positing theories of player handwriting on knobs or bp vs game bats. If you have an inside source, like some who post here have, then take it to the bank, anything else is guesswork.

My suggestion is to start with the collection date in the database and work your way back through the video on MLB.com. You may find that bat you thought was hitless is a real gem!

Good luck

[Greenbaumer]

Great points, and for the record, both bats I have purchased I photomatched myself. As for both of the bats I was interested in, I photomatched games before and after and didn't see the bat again. I guess the point is that if I cannot prove the bat was used for a hit/some type of big play, I'm just not interested.

I have a feeling most will disagree with me.

[gameon]

Green, nothing wrong with your thinking and desire to collect a certain style or use of bat. Everyone should collect what is important to themselves. I, for instance, look for lots of use with pine tar and ball seam marks. It doesnt matter to me if it has a hairline crack in it as long as it's not splintered or sticking outward. Some collectors dont want anything to do with a cracked bat, which is also fine. I also am not interested in game ready or game issued bats because of lack of use, but that is my choice, again some people like those. I like to display them and enjoy when someone visits and is in awe of what they are looking at.

Gary

[matt]

Great topic. I try to photomatch every modern bat I buy, tending to only buy those with steiner or MLB holos to help me match time period. I have found that the player had a poor record with bats and sold them. I just didn't have the excitement about the bat I had hoped for and moved on. In other cases, i found weeks of matches and multiple home runs (good 2009 pedroia bat like this last year). Those are the keepers for the collection.

Vintage bats, I pay up for use. I have older Williams and Cepeda bats that look like the went to war...must have had some HRs, but we will never know.

I have no problem with cracks or even heavy demolition, but do not keep splintered bats. No interest in shiny bats.

Matt Miller

[frikativ54]

An interesting question I'd like to post to the boards. Do you still want a game used bat if it was not used for a hit?

For instance, in recent memory I have had the chance to purchase both a Troy Tulowitzki game used bat and a Carlos Gonzalez. In both cases, Tulowitzki went 0-5 and Carlos Gonzalez went 0-7 on the given day the bats were said to have been used. Naturally, I don't want the bat.

Does this matter to you?

If a pounded bat were not authenticated for a hit, it might take down the value for me. But not by much, if it could be conclusively matched to other games. I'm not big on bats unless they are pounded with use, and if that's the case, it's likely the player got a hit with the bat. The biggest thing with bats for me is the use. And if it barely had any, I would not want it.

[Jags Fan Dan]

Great points, and for the record, both bats I have purchased I photomatched myself. As for both of the bats I was interested in, I photomatched games before and after and didn't see the bat again. I guess the point is that if I cannot prove the bat was used for a hit/some type of big play, I'm just not interested.

I have a feeling most will disagree with me.

Nothing wrong with having a narrow focus. Sometimes budget and display space necessitate narrowing the focus of a collection anyway.

[godwulf]

Every collector is different. And, of course, as we all know, some are more different than others. Seriously, as others have said, it's all what appeals to you and what you want to make room for. Personally, I would have a really difficult time trying to be that selective.

My ideal bat is usually going to have a ton of ballmarks, maybe some pine tar (grass in the pine tar is a definite plus), and is either uncracked or has a small handle crack with no pieces missing. That's the one I will make every effort to obtain, and will feel bad if I miss out on it. On the other hand, if the price is right and I feel like I need a bat for my collection, I will go ahead and buy it, whenever possible, even when it doesn't fit those criteria. I have bats with zero use, and I have bats that are very badly damaged - it's just a matter of whether or not a "better" bat of that player and model is available.

Somebody mentioned knob markings. Luis Gonzalez used to put an asterick on the knob of a bat that he liked, and two astericks on the knob of a bat that he really liked. This is something that Gonzo, himself, told me. One of my favorite LG gamers is - shock! not a Diamondbacks bat - one of his bats from Los Angeles, which happens to fit the aforementioned criteria perfectly - tremendous use, uncracked, lots of pine tar - and has two astericks on the knob.

Greenbaumer, you also made mention of a Ruth gamer being "on top of everyone's wish list", and I have to dissent from that. Yes, I give the Babe all respect, but personally I would rather have one of Honus Wagner's bats (or just about anything else Wagner game-used), or maybe a Satchel Paige jersey from the Negro Leagues.