My friend just send me this video of a baseball bat mysteriously standing up after being thrown. He claims it happened but I say its fake: Baseball bat standing up in a fake looking way

Did this happen or is it a fake video?

  • 2
    The batter is Atlanta Braves' Martín Prado. This event is discussed on his Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart%C3%ADn_Prado
    – ESultanik
    Dec 18, 2014 at 15:38
  • 2
    The Wikipedia entry is not compelling: it's citation is bit-rotted. Dec 18, 2014 at 18:55
  • The New York Times should fire its sports reporter who didn't even mention it! (Or perhaps a more prosaic explanation: it is an easily faked video, with no corroborating evidence.)
    – Oddthinking
    Dec 18, 2014 at 22:50
  • 1
    Or they didn't think it was worth mentioning. That is just as prosac.
    – spoderman
    Dec 18, 2014 at 23:23
  • 1
    If you're imagining a bat with a convex end, this would indeed be hard to believe. But many professional players use a bat with a concave end, which could certainly stand up and be stable. I found other photos of Prado using such a bat. Sep 18, 2022 at 18:53

1 Answer 1


It happened.

This is from a September 12, 2007 game. Braves vs Mets. Martin Prado is the batter.

Discussion of the event happened online in the weeks following. Example discussion at Ebaum's World, September 26, 2007.

The announcer was surprised, saying "that would never happen in 100 years".

It was reported in AOL News (via Web Archive) on September 18, 2007.

Other video angles of this event have been taken down from YouTube because of Major League Baseball copyright claims: http://atlanta.metblogs.com/2007/09/17/martin-prado-bat-man/

While this doesnt prove this, it explains the lack of alternate angles.

Here is another instance of this almost happening: http://youtu.be/Wonpmn4nycQ

That is to lower the threshold of evidence for people who think this is impossible.

Here is somebody discussing it the day sfter (http://nextyear.blogspot.ca/2007/09/tapes-n-tapes.html?m=1):

After Martin Prado grounded out to second (and dropped the bat in a way that it bounced up and landed perfectly on its end -- baseball can be funny sometimes, and not just in the important stuff)

That was the following day. You can see it is little more than a mention to the baseball community. This was an important late season game. Prado was brought in for this one at-bat in the ninth and his team lost. The significance of this game far outweighed the unimportant bat balancing thing.

As for why the camera doesn't zoom in, they use a fixed view camera over the plate for strike zone analysis.

The fallacy that doubters seem to be making is anomaly hunting.. They have an idea of what should have been the reaction without an understanding of the context of that at-bat or the game in the playoff hunt. Absense of evidence is only evidence of absense if the evidence really should be there. In this case, the things doubters say are missing are reasonable to be missing.


What constitutes an anomaly? Well, anything you want to count as an anomaly. There are no specific criteria. In practice the criterion is – it seems weird to me. This then opens the door to confirmation bias. Seek and ye shall find.

  • 1
    Here is a video including the announcer's commentary: youtube.com/watch?v=vUSFLZ32dr4
    – ESultanik
    Dec 18, 2014 at 15:36
  • 1
    I'm afraid that neither of those links is a good source; the former is a brief series of eight comments apparently based on the contents of a page given earlier (at a site called www.spikedhumor.com which is now unreachable); the latter is a short two-paragraph (counting charitably) blog entry, I guess, which may or may not have accompanied a video clip or photo or something which is no longer there. Neither one is at all substantive. Can you find any other source? Dec 18, 2014 at 18:36
  • 4
    They show that discussion of the event happened contemporaneously with the claimed event, narrowing the range of dates that this would have had to have been faked to a period of two weeks in September 2007. Its substantive.
    – spoderman
    Dec 18, 2014 at 19:08
  • 1
    This answer, counter-intuitively, made me believe the video was more likely to be faked. They are all discussing the exact same potentially-faked video - no shots from other cameras; no independent witnesses who were at the game; no interviews with Prado. The discussion was not on the day, but days afterwards. The quote from the commentator does not reference that actual event, making the audio easy to lift from some other unusual play.
    – Oddthinking
    Dec 18, 2014 at 22:13
  • 1
    Why is it so hard to beleive this happened. I get that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but this isn't an extraordinary claim.
    – spoderman
    Dec 18, 2014 at 23:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .