The difference the bats/balls make.

[greymule]

The highest level of the Trentonian tournament was completed yesterday. Pretty much the same teams as last year. Sixteen or so teams from six or seven states.

However, the scores this year were quite different. Last year, a couple of games saw more than 80 runs, and 40+ was common. Several teams had single innings of more than 15 runs. (One of my games was 18-17 going into the second.) Most teams hit their 6-homer limit early and then continued to hit balls over the fence inadvertently for outs.

This year, I don't know of a game that went over 30 runs, many were below 20, and some were below 10. Two teams that scored over 80 runs in a game last year had a 5-2 game this year. The championship final was 12-7.

The team that won last year was shut out in the winner's bracket final this year.

This year, the ball was changed to a Trump 44 core 525 compression that was a beanbag by the second inning. Also, the banned Miken Ultras were used last year but not this.

Does anyone out there think that these two factors might have had anything to do with the decrease in run production?

[Tap]

The most important property for softballs is compression. COR is not especially significant when multi-wall (including composites) are used. It surprises me that those 525 balls became soft. Are you sure they weren't 375 compression?

As for the Miken Ultras (I and II), banning those does make a huge difference, especially in size of sweetspot -- i.e. almost the entire bat. Miken's other bats (as well as others on the market) have much smaller sweetspots, hitting it perfectly prodices similar results as the Ultra. It just doesn't happen as often.

[greymule]

They were definitely 525 compression. However, they were crummy balls. The numbers don't tell you how long the ball will be hard.

Many teams were using that orange Mizuno bat; some, including of course a team sponsored by Worth, were using the PST.

Maybe the manufacturers will figure out a way to make balls that get livelier the more they are hit.

[Edited by greymule on Aug 4th, 2003 at 04:31 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
The highest level of the Trentonian tournament was completed yesterday. Pretty much the same teams as last year. Sixteen or so teams from six or seven states.

However, the scores this year were quite different. Last year, a couple of games saw more than 80 runs, and 40+ was common. Several teams had single innings of more than 15 runs. (One of my games was 18-17 going into the second.) Most teams hit their 6-homer limit early and then continued to hit balls over the fence inadvertently for outs.

This year, I don't know of a game that went over 30 runs, many were below 20, and some were below 10. Two teams that scored over 80 runs in a game last year had a 5-2 game this year. The championship final was 12-7.

The team that won last year was shut out in the winner's bracket final this year.

This year, the ball was changed to a Trump 44 core 525 compression that was a beanbag by the second inning. Also, the banned Miken Ultras were used last year but not this.

Does anyone out there think that these two factors might have had anything to do with the decrease in run production?

IOW, home run hitters hit the home runs and the rest had to play the game as it was meant to be played

I don't believe the COR/COMP made the difference here. I think it was the ball. From what I have seen, the Trump doesn't hold up very well.

Meanwhile, the balls are much different than what most of you think. If you noticed, ASA added a 'zero' to the end of many of their standards this year and the reason was because the manufacturers openly admitted they were producing ball at a higher level than expected. For example, when ASA spec stated the COR was to be .47 or .44, the manufacturers met their obligation. Of course, the balls they produced were .479 and .449, but that was legal as they provided the specs directed.

This is the type of cat and mouse game being played.

[BobM]

Since I officiated this tournament (12 games over the two days, including both bracket finals as well as the championship), and have worked this Tournament for many
years, I would like to reply to some comments. The ball that was used this year was the same as last year, the
Trump Stote, cor. 44, 525 compression, prohyde cover.
As for the low scoring, I think you have to factor in the
following: the fields were wet and slow, the wind was blowing in all tournament long, the humidity was high, and most teams were playing a five man infield, due to the conditions. So I really think that you cannot completely
blame the ball for the lack of scoring. As for home runs, in
the "if" game, the wind did stop blowing for about a half hour, and the winning team, Lookers/Lotierzo's/Showtime, hit
five home runs during that time. I think that most of the
teams, accustomed to playing long ball, could not adjust to
the conditions.
When you take all this into account, while the ball may not have been the livliest, I believe strongly that it was the weather, and not the ball or bats, that kept scores low.

[Dakota]

Hey BobM,

Welcome!

[greymule]

Glad to see you're a member now, Bob. I worked several of those games with you last year.

Posters should know that BobM is one of the best umpires in the area.

I didn't realize the ball was the same as last year's. The players were complaining about it, so I assumed it had been changed. There is no question that the weather was a factor.

I think the lack of the Miken Ultra this year also made a difference. The Ultra IIs are not quite as live.

[Edited by greymule on Aug 7th, 2003 at 03:52 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule


I think the lack of the Miken Ultra this year also made a difference. The Ultra IIs are not quite as live.

[Edited by greymule on Aug 7th, 2003 at 03:52 PM]

If you believe that, you haven't been paying attention. It was an inside joke last year among the players. They would openly laugh when someone mentioned the "dummying down" of the original Miken. Many will tell you the U2 actually has more action to it.

After watching this bat for two years, I would have to concur.

[BobM]

One last comment: the tournament committee banned ALL Miken bats, not just the Ultra and Ultra II. A lot of the players confided to me that some people are painting the Ultra and the Ultra II to look like the lower end Mikens, i.e., the Velocit-E. And I agree with Mike Rowe, the Ultra II is just as "juiced", maybe more, as the original Ultra.

[greymule]

My error. They were indeed not using the Ultra IIs in the Trentonian. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the main bats were the orange Mizuno and the Worth PST.

Some of the local leagues allow the Miken Ultra II, however, and I'm surprised to learn that it's more juiced than the original. I never saw balls jump off the bat the way they did with the original Mikens that were in use last year.

Is the Ultra II one of those bats that meets specs when it's new and then gets livelier?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
My error. They were indeed not using the Ultra IIs in the Trentonian. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the main bats were the orange Mizuno and the Worth PST.

Some of the local leagues allow the Miken Ultra II, however, and I'm surprised to learn that it's more juiced than the original. I never saw balls jump off the bat the way they did with the original Mikens that were in use last year.

Is the Ultra II one of those bats that meets specs when it's new and then gets livelier?

Absolutely! That's what made the players joke about it. It it fine coming off the rack, but after about 100 hits it starts to loosen up. After 200, the bat coming into it high-performance level. The players are so aware of this, many take the bats, wrap the barrel in cloth and start hitting telephone poles with them just to expedite the composite breakdown.