New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Baseball: Corked Bats Don't Help Power Hitters

What distance a power hitter gains using a lighter corked bat he loses in collision efficiency. But a singles hitter may get solid contact more often with the lighter, illegal bat. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Baseball players sometimes cheat! One popular method has been to cork the bat. You drill out some of the core of the bat, and replace the heavy wood with light cork. You can then swing the lighter bat faster, and thus hit the ball further.

 

Of course, most ballplayers aren’t physicists, so they don’t realize that by making the bat lighter, they’re reducing the collision efficiency. You swing faster, but get a limper contact. In theory, anyway.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

So physicists led by the University of Illinois’s Alan Nathan tested corked bats under controlled conditions. The doctored lumber actually usually causes the ball to go less far, they found. The work appears in the online forum the Physics arXiv. [http://bit.ly/9At1lX] So for a power hitter to cork his bat is a bad idea.

 

But the researchers note that, ironically, a corked bat might result in more homers from non-homer hitters. Who can watch a pitch slightly longer before swinging, make up for the lost time with a faster swing and achieve more solid contact more often. So a corked bat is a bad idea for Sammy Sosa, who got caught using one. But a good idea for, say, Bucky Dent.

 

—Steve Mirsky

 

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe