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.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe