George Brett and the pine tar incident

DerekJohnson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbEHAsZxRYo

chuck

Yankee killer

DerekJohnson

chuck

DerekJohnson said:

I think Brett wins that over Junior rather easily if it's a contest. He had multiple playoff series against the yanks and crushed it, including the iconic ALCS winning homer off of Gossage in 1980.

RaceBannon

chuck said:

DerekJohnson said:

I think Brett wins that over Junior rather easily if it's a contest. He had multiple playoff series against the yanks and crushed it, including the iconic ALCS winning homer off of Gossage in 1980.

Brett lost multiple playoff series to the Yanks

Like Junior he had one win

chuck

RaceBannon said:

chuck said:

DerekJohnson said:

I think Brett wins that over Junior rather easily if it's a contest. He had multiple playoff series against the yanks and crushed it, including the iconic ALCS winning homer off of Gossage in 1980.

Brett lost multiple playoff series to the Yanks

Like Junior he had one win

The Royals lost to the Yankees. Brett held up his end every time, just as he did in the WS loss to Philly and the win over the Cards.

chuck

Not to diminish what Junior did in 95. Pretty sure he hit five homers in that series. That's pretty good.

RaceBannon

chuck said:

Not to diminish what Junior did in 95. Pretty sure he hit five homers in that series. That's pretty good.

That's what got him the cover

Had a homer in game 5 to close the gap

chuck

RaceBannon said:

chuck said:

Not to diminish what Junior did in 95. Pretty sure he hit five homers in that series. That's pretty good.

That's what got him the cover

Had a homer in game 5 to close the gap

It's funny though. Edgar's heroics in that series and the image of Griffey sliding in with the winning run seem to overshadow that feat in most people's memory, including mine.

creepycoug

Is that a rule with no purpose? I can't imagine that pine tar would increase the ball's flight off the barrel of the bat. Seems so inconsequential, unless I'm missing something.

DerekJohnson

creepycoug said:

Is that a rule with no purpose? I can't imagine that pine tar would increase the ball's flight off the barrel of the bat. Seems so inconsequential, unless I'm missing something.

Here comes the clubhouse lawyer

creepycoug

DerekJohnson said:

creepycoug said:

Is that a rule with no purpose? I can't imagine that pine tar would increase the ball's flight off the barrel of the bat. Seems so inconsequential, unless I'm missing something.

Here comes the clubhouse lawyer

One of Kim's all-tim shit posts.

chuck

creepycoug said:

Is that a rule with no purpose? I can't imagine that pine tar would increase the ball's flight off the barrel of the bat. Seems so inconsequential, unless I'm missing something.

It was useless. Just a generic rule that no foreign substance could go more than, I think, 18" from the handle. I'm not sure what they were guarding against other than maybe gobs of pine tar sticking to the ball.

Fishpo31

I am not a material physicist, but it has to do with altering the bat. I seem to remember that there was an argument made that pine tar hardens as it ages, and could impact performance of the bat, (coefficient of restitution) which is essentially the bat's reaction to contacting the ball. Super-slo-mo at contact shows the barrel bend back, and then spring forward, throwing the ball off the barrel, if you will. The old coaches I had called it the "trampoline effect"...

Guys used to "groove" the handles, taking material away to make the bat more end-heavy, giving it more whip, and increasing C.O.R. Not as well-known as corking, but legal...

Old-school clubhouses would have a large soup bone mounted on the wall, and guysm would work the barrel over it to tighten the grain, hardening the bat. All of that shit went out the window with the decline of ash, and emergence of maple, which is what everyone uses now...

chuck

Fishpo31 said:

I am not a material physicist, but it has to do with altering the bat. I seem to remember that there was an argument made that pine tar hardens as it ages, and could impact performance of the bat, (coefficient of restitution) which is essentially the bat's reaction to contacting the ball. Super-slo-mo at contact shows the barrel bend back, and then spring forward, throwing the ball off the barrel, if you will. The old coaches I had called it the "trampoline effect"...

Guys used to "groove" the handles, taking material away to make the bat more end-heavy, giving it more whip, and increasing C.O.R. Not as well-known as corking, but legal...

Old-school clubhouses would have a large soup bone mounted on the wall, and guysm would work the barrel over it to tighten the grain, hardening the bat. All of that shit went out the window with the decline of ash, and emergence of maple, which is what everyone uses now...

Even the bat Brett used, which one could see had the stuff way farther up than allowed, still had it nowhere near the sweet spot of the bat. I'd say from memory that it was short of the barrel by enough that hitting it would've meant a broken bat or at least severely rattled hands, hence no effect from an increased COR.

Fishpo31

chuck said:

Fishpo31 said:

I am not a material physicist, but it has to do with altering the bat. I seem to remember that there was an argument made that pine tar hardens as it ages, and could impact performance of the bat, (coefficient of restitution) which is essentially the bat's reaction to contacting the ball. Super-slo-mo at contact shows the barrel bend back, and then spring forward, throwing the ball off the barrel, if you will. The old coaches I had called it the "trampoline effect"...

Guys used to "groove" the handles, taking material away to make the bat more end-heavy, giving it more whip, and increasing C.O.R. Not as well-known as corking, but legal...

Old-school clubhouses would have a large soup bone mounted on the wall, and guysm would work the barrel over it to tighten the grain, hardening the bat. All of that shit went out the window with the decline of ash, and emergence of maple, which is what everyone uses now...

Even the bat Brett used, which one could see had the stuff way farther up than allowed, still had it nowhere near the sweet spot of the bat. I'd say from memory that it was short of the barrel by enough that hitting it would've meant a broken bat or at least severely rattled hands, hence no effect from an increased COR.

I agree. Everyone is looking for an edge. IF it hardened up, and IF it gave an advantage, it would have been that if the area from the knob to the trade mark is stronger, that makes the bat stronger...specifically the handle to the trade mark. It is in the same category as sticky stuff for pitchers. They have been using sun screen and rosin for decades...somebody tried to take it a step further with spider tack, and that became a deal. The envelope is continually being pushed...

One of my childhood friends is a golf pro, played on the tour for 3 years, and a long time club pro. He told me about some rubberized gunk that golfers have been using for years, painted inside the head of the driver, that has similarities in COR to a superball. He is in close proximity to a PAC 8, 10, 12 4 school, and one of his assistants raked in cash loading up baseball bats, until they got rid of the cap and made them solid. If you aint cheating, you aint trying...

I don't have the answer, but I side with George, because he was a fucking stud, and he let me drink beer and dip with him...

El_K

George Brett shitting his pants story is another great thing about him
https://youtu.be/4Qv25_DFR2k?si=LCW8IZDkmdIaQb-I

creepycoug

Fishpo31 said:

chuck said:

Fishpo31 said:

I am not a material physicist, but it has to do with altering the bat. I seem to remember that there was an argument made that pine tar hardens as it ages, and could impact performance of the bat, (coefficient of restitution) which is essentially the bat's reaction to contacting the ball. Super-slo-mo at contact shows the barrel bend back, and then spring forward, throwing the ball off the barrel, if you will. The old coaches I had called it the "trampoline effect"...

Guys used to "groove" the handles, taking material away to make the bat more end-heavy, giving it more whip, and increasing C.O.R. Not as well-known as corking, but legal...

Old-school clubhouses would have a large soup bone mounted on the wall, and guysm would work the barrel over it to tighten the grain, hardening the bat. All of that shit went out the window with the decline of ash, and emergence of maple, which is what everyone uses now...

Even the bat Brett used, which one could see had the stuff way farther up than allowed, still had it nowhere near the sweet spot of the bat. I'd say from memory that it was short of the barrel by enough that hitting it would've meant a broken bat or at least severely rattled hands, hence no effect from an increased COR.

I agree. Everyone is looking for an edge. IF it hardened up, and IF it gave an advantage, it would have been that if the area from the knob to the trade mark is stronger, that makes the bat stronger...specifically the handle to the trade mark. It is in the same category as sticky stuff for pitchers. They have been using sun screen and rosin for decades...somebody tried to take it a step further with spider tack, and that became a deal. The envelope is continually being pushed...

One of my childhood friends is a golf pro, played on the tour for 3 years, and a long time club pro. He told me about some rubberized gunk that golfers have been using for years, painted inside the head of the driver, that has similarities in COR to a superball. He is in close proximity to a PAC 8, 10, 12 4 school, and one of his assistants raked in cash loading up baseball bats, until they got rid of the cap and made them solid. If you aint cheating, you aint trying...

I don't have the answer, but I side with George, because he was a fucking stud, and he let me drink beer and dip with him...

Well, I watched a Youtube on this last night and it turns out the rule, at least according one guy, was to save baseballs because the shit would get on the ball and (presumably because he didn't say this part) make it unplayable. Again, presumably, because it would be a substance on the ball that either the pitcher would use (we know how they feel about vasoline) or not want on the ball. IDK, whatever. It's a dumb reason to take a hit off the board. Like, fine the team $500 per ball that is taken out of circulation because it has too much tar on it or something. Otherwise, who cares?

Fishpo31

creepycoug said:

Fishpo31 said:

chuck said:

Fishpo31 said:

I am not a material physicist, but it has to do with altering the bat. I seem to remember that there was an argument made that pine tar hardens as it ages, and could impact performance of the bat, (coefficient of restitution) which is essentially the bat's reaction to contacting the ball. Super-slo-mo at contact shows the barrel bend back, and then spring forward, throwing the ball off the barrel, if you will. The old coaches I had called it the "trampoline effect"...

Guys used to "groove" the handles, taking material away to make the bat more end-heavy, giving it more whip, and increasing C.O.R. Not as well-known as corking, but legal...

Old-school clubhouses would have a large soup bone mounted on the wall, and guysm would work the barrel over it to tighten the grain, hardening the bat. All of that shit went out the window with the decline of ash, and emergence of maple, which is what everyone uses now...

Even the bat Brett used, which one could see had the stuff way farther up than allowed, still had it nowhere near the sweet spot of the bat. I'd say from memory that it was short of the barrel by enough that hitting it would've meant a broken bat or at least severely rattled hands, hence no effect from an increased COR.

I agree. Everyone is looking for an edge. IF it hardened up, and IF it gave an advantage, it would have been that if the area from the knob to the trade mark is stronger, that makes the bat stronger...specifically the handle to the trade mark. It is in the same category as sticky stuff for pitchers. They have been using sun screen and rosin for decades...somebody tried to take it a step further with spider tack, and that became a deal. The envelope is continually being pushed...

One of my childhood friends is a golf pro, played on the tour for 3 years, and a long time club pro. He told me about some rubberized gunk that golfers have been using for years, painted inside the head of the driver, that has similarities in COR to a superball. He is in close proximity to a PAC 8, 10, 12 4 school, and one of his assistants raked in cash loading up baseball bats, until they got rid of the cap and made them solid. If you aint cheating, you aint trying...

I don't have the answer, but I side with George, because he was a fucking stud, and he let me drink beer and dip with him...

Well, I watched a Youtube on this last night and it turns out the rule, at least according one guy, was to save baseballs because the shit would get on the ball and (presumably because he didn't say this part) make it unplayable. Again, presumably, because it would be a substance on the ball that either the pitcher would use (we know how they feel about vasoline) or not want on the ball. IDK, whatever. It's a dumb reason to take a hit off the board. Like, fine the team $500 per ball that is taken out of circulation because it has too much tar on it or something. Otherwise, who cares?

Did a little research…
Estimated number of baseballs used in an MLB season…260,000

Average lifespan of an MLB baseball…seven pitches

Rule for taping / tarring bats…18 inches

Taping and tarring is specifically limited to assisting the hitter’s grip while hitting

They have to dictate the rules with a very firm hand. If not, guys will push the shit out of it (Google Gaylord Perry puff ball). Idk if tar up the bat helps hitters, but I bet there are some guys in lab coats that know. They play to win, and if you give them an inch, they will take 100 miles, if not more…

Hippopeteamus

chuck said:

creepycoug said:

Is that a rule with no purpose? I can't imagine that pine tar would increase the ball's flight off the barrel of the bat. Seems so inconsequential, unless I'm missing something.

It was useless. Just a generic rule that no foreign substance could go more than, I think, 18" from the handle. I'm not sure what they were guarding against other than maybe gobs of pine tar sticking to the ball.

People forget that the MLB commish actually overturned the ruling, based on similar reasoning that it was meant to save balls. The HR counted and they finished the game later in the year picking up after the HR was hit, with the Royal's winning. The yankees tried to appeal every base and the umpires had a signed statement from the crew of the original game that Brett had touched every base. The Yanks protested the game, but the result stood.

chuck

Hippopeteamus said:

chuck said:

creepycoug said:

Is that a rule with no purpose? I can't imagine that pine tar would increase the ball's flight off the barrel of the bat. Seems so inconsequential, unless I'm missing something.

It was useless. Just a generic rule that no foreign substance could go more than, I think, 18" from the handle. I'm not sure what they were guarding against other than maybe gobs of pine tar sticking to the ball.

People forget that the MLB commish actually overturned the ruling, based on similar reasoning that it was meant to save balls. The HR counted and they finished the game later in the year picking up after the HR was hit, with the Royal's winning. The yankees tried to appeal every base and the umpires had a signed statement from the crew of the original game that Brett had touched every base. The Yanks protested the game, but the result stood.

I actually remember that well now that you reminded me.