Baseball Bat Debate: Wood
Vs. Aluminum
By: Christopher Merone, Michael
Indelicato, and Richard Centra
Hypothesis:

We, as a group, hypothesized that the
Aluminum baseball bat will be more
advantageous in the game of baseball
rather than a wooden baseball bat.
Compare and Contrast: Wooden
Bat and an Aluminum Bat:

Aluminum:
 Hollow core
 Doesn’t break, might
dent.
 Easier to swing
 Less sting on player’s
hands when contact is
made.
 Bat weight is evenly
distributed.







Wood:
Plastic core
Will break, which affects
the rate of the game.
Harder to swing.
More maintenance such
as: applying pine tar or
tape in order for the
player to get a clean
grip.
More sting.
Top heavy.
Diagram referring to last slide:
 Where the
ball usually
landed after
we hit with
an aluminum
bat.
(throughout
the midoutfield to
deep
outfield)
Where
Key: baseballs
landed after
using the
bats.
 Where the
ball usually
landed after
we hit with
the wooden
baseball bat.
(outfield
grass line)
Starting
point 
Methods and Observations:




We used trial and error and marked the “sweet spots” of
the bat tape in order to see where the ball landed
throughout the baseball bat.
You may be wondering what the “sweet spot” on the ball
really is: The spot on the bat that produces the least
amount of sting on the player’s hands, when contact is
made.
Besides testing which bat would be more advantageous, we
tested to see if hitting the ball on the “sweet spots,” would
affect the rate at which the ball travels.
Trampoline affect: When a baseball makes contact with an
aluminum bat, the bat compresses like a spring at the point
of contact. The baseball is not compressed and does not
lose energy to friction forces. The trampoline effect returns
the energy back to the ball.
DISTANCE NOT ON SWEET SPOT:
Chris
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Wood
115 ft
125 ft
114 ft
123 ft
112 ft
117.8 ft
Aluminum
130 ft
135 ft
132 ft
139 ft
140 ft
135.2 ft
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Wood
110 ft
112 ft
115 ft
119 ft
110 ft
113.2 ft
Aluminum
132 ft
134 ft
129 ft
136 ft
130 ft
132.2 ft
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Wood
111 ft
116 ft
118 ft
117 ft
122 ft
116.8 ft
Aluminum
136 ft
135 ft
128 ft
134 ft
135 ft
133.6 ft
Michael
RJ
DISTANCE OF BUNTING:
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Wood
2 ft 7 in
2 ft 4 in
3 ft 0 in
2 ft 9 in
2 ft 11 in
2 ft 7 in
Aluminum
4 ft 2 in
3 ft 11 in
4 ft 5 in
4 ft 7 in
4 ft 5 in
4 ft 3 in
Chris
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Wood
2 ft 3 in
2 ft 5 in
2 ft 5 in
2 ft 9 in
3 ft 0 in
2 ft 6 in
Aluminum
4 ft 0 in
4 ft 4 in
3 ft 10 in
4 ft 3 in
4 ft 6 in
4 ft 1 in
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Wood
2 ft 8 in
2 ft 6 in
2 ft 3 in
2 ft 4 in
3 ft 2 in
2 ft 6 in
Aluminum
4 ft 2 in
4 ft 7 in
3 ft 11 in
4 ft 7 in
4 ft 3 in
4 ft 3 in
Michael
RJ
Time of swings
Chris
1
2
3
4
5
Averag
e
Wood
0.80s
0.83s
0.77s
0.81s
0.82s
0.806s
Aluminum
0.62s
0.61s
0.66s
0.65s
0.60s
0.628s
1
2
3
4
5
Averag
e
Wood
0.84s
0.80s
0.85s
0.82s
0.84s
0.83s
Aluminum
0.63s
0.65s
0.62s
0.61s
0.64s
0.63s
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Wood
0.82s
0.85s
0.85s
0.86s
0.87s
0.85s
Aluminum
0.61s
0.64s
0.65s
0.63s
0.70s
0.646s
Michael
RJ
Conclusion:
After much testing and note taking, we
have proven our hypothesis to be correct,
that an aluminum baseball bat, is in fact,
more advantageous.
 We enjoyed performing our experiment,
and we hope this project was a help to
many player’s who want to fulfill their task
of playing baseball, on the highest of
levels.

Any Questions?
Baseball Bat Debate: If there
are not any more questions:
Thank-you for your time!
Christopher Merone, Michael
Indelicato, and Richard Centra