"Bat Durability" Who is to Blame, the Bat or Ball Manufacturers? by  Mark McDowell, Ph.D. and  Ronald D. Noebe, Ph.D.

Currently, there is plenty of controversy as to why bats are denting at an increasing rate. In order to cover all the issues in this complex debate, we have decided to share our observations as well as the views of several bat and ball manufacturers. We will start by presenting our views in order to establish a common ground within which this debate can take place. We have also solicited feedback from all the major bat and ball manufacturers and will present the opinions and views of all those that have responded.

Disclaimer : The opinions expressed by Mark McDowell and Ron Noebe are just that, opinions. We do not endorse any bat or ball product, nor do we accept any type of compensation for our articles.

In softball today, the quest is for the highest-performing equipment. Much of this is ego driven by those players who are now just in reach of "going yard". The other driving force is competition. If your opponents have the best equipment on the market and you want to remain competitive with them, then you will need the best equipment as well. Today there is essentially no such thing as a "social" softball game. Softball is war and you need the most potent weapons available.

Bat Manufacturers: Bat manufacturers have definitely changed the design of bats over the years. One of the most significant changes has been a decrease in the wall thickness of the barrel. This has several benefits. A thinner barrel increases the contact time between the ball and bat, increases the spring-like performance of the barrel, and decreases the weight of the bat for a faster swing. The bottom line is enhanced performance, .but the downside is a greater risk of the bat denting.

There are bats out there that are 10 years old that players are still using which do not have a dent or even a wave in them. The wall thickness on these older bats that we measured was in the range of 0.076"-0.091". Today's wall thickness on high-tech bats are in the range of 0.070"-0.074" or less. It is true that higher strength alloys are now being used, but the increased strength of these alloys is not proportionate to the large decreases that have occurred in wall thickness. Consequently, an increase in bat denting was bound to occur. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, heightened expectations could be another factor driving this push to ever thinner walls. When an average player sees 400'+ home runs at a Major Tournament, they want to be able to use the same equipment in order to get the same result. Can this same player use a stock bat and get the same result? Probably not, but companies will say that the super player models are no different than the stock bat, except that they are end-weighted differently. Well, this is not always the case, especially with the super player's bats that we have tested. All of these bats have much thinner walls than the stock bats and are often modified in other ways that we don't care to mention.

Since many average players want to get their hands on the same type of equipment that is used on the Super level, this has led to a strange phenomenon in the industry. People willing to pay top dollar for a bat that is so thin-walled, that the companies won't even cover these bats with any type of warranty and at the same time charge more for the bats! This is probably the only industry where this phenomenon is so prevalent. Try buying a toaster that will toast your bread in half the time but will break after the first 20 uses. The company will be out of business in no time. However, even the "normal" line of bats offered by most companies are pushing the limit on wall thickness. What we have found so prevalent are bats with a 0.072"-0.074" wall thickness denting because they may have a small section of barrel that is 0.070" or less. Balls have a way of finding these undersize regions. With these bats there is no room for error. When the bat walls were 0.078", it wouldn't matter if a section of the barrel was a little on the thin side at 0.074" but when you start out at the ragged edge you have no room for error.

It would be nice to be able to place wall thickness requirements on bats in order to slow down this performance race instead of using the BPF, which has been the center of controversy since its introduction because no bat company to our knowledge has been able to reproduce the results in their own testing labs. Some of today's bats are made out of materials other than aluminum (note the several brands of composite bats on the market), and many of the others are composed of multiple walls of the same or varying materials. It would be difficult to determine the wall thickness of these kinds of bats. A simple ultrasound device is all that is needed to check the wall thickness of most bats and the wall thickness range can be debated among the bat manufactures and softball associations.

Ball Manufacturers: As with bats, the ability to "go yard" more often than not depends on what type of ball you use. The COR (Coefficient of Restitution) is what is supposed to govern the "liveliness" of the ball in the sport of softball. The most popular COR for league play in 1998 is .47 COR but .50 COR, .48 COR, .44 COR, and even .40 COR balls are in use. The problem is that even balls with the same COR value seem to perform quite differently. The loophole for softballs is the compression or ball hardness. There is currently no limit on the compression or hardness of a softball and this seems be an added factor in the high incidence of dented bats.

As in the case of thinning down the walls of a bat, the purpose of increasing the ball compression is to improve the absolute performance level of the player. The higher the ball compression, the greater the high-tech thin-walled barrels will flex, and the farther the ball will travel. However, the higher compression balls are also more damaging to your bat, which we have already concluded is at the ragged edge in terms of survivable wall thickness. The apparent changes to ball compression are the result of players wanting to hit more home runs. We often hear of teams hitting 10 and 15 home runs in a game and when we ask what type of ball they are using, it is usually a hard or high-compression ball. We also hear of teams hitting 2 or 3 home runs a game and complaining about what ball they are using and blaming the ball for being too soft or a "mush-ball". Again one of the major problems is with expectations. The medium to low compression balls are the balls that are intended to be used in most leagues in order to keep the sport safe, keep the scores to softball, not basketball figures, and bring defense back into play.

So how can a .44 COR ball have a higher compression than a .47 COR ball?. The answer is simple, so that Super Players can hit more home runs. There is a .44 COR limit in the Super Division and since there is not a limit on compression, the ball manufacturers can make them equivalent or even comparable to some .50 COR balls in absolute performance by using a high-compression core. The USSSA should be applauded for trying the experimental ball used in the Maryland NIT this year. Home runs were down 10 fold and the scores were like fast-pitch softball, 3-2, 5-1 and so on and the most home runs hit by one team was 19 for the tournament. The fences were 300' as well. Ideally, if the compression of this experimental ball was increased by 30%, we would have a good game at this level with manageable scores.

Therefore, in addition to the COR restrictions on balls, restrictions on ball compression need to be implemented at each appropriate level of play. This will make the game more enjoyable for the average softball player and fan.

These changes in ball compression wouldn't have made any difference 5 or 10 years ago because the bat walls were so thick, that the changes in compression that we see today wouldn't have had any major affect. It is only with the introduction of "ultra-thin" barrels that the ball manufacturers have been able to take advantage of compression changes. So who is to blame? It seems like a hopelessly interrelated problem that has the potential to spiral completely out of control. "Ultra-thin" walls and "high-compression" balls, both are responsible for the current plight of dented bats.

The Players/Consumers: In the final analysis, it is probably the softball players themselves who are as much to blame for all this as anyone. If players wouldn't go out of their way to purchase bats and balls based solely on performance with little regard for durability, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. After all, both the bat and ball companies are only trying to cater to our desires.

There is also the issue of what constitutes normal use. When players get one of the new high-tech bats, the tendency these days is for everyone on the team to use it. This has become such a problem that we have had teams ask us to borrow our bats even when we can't make it to the game. It is not uncommon to have bats that see more use in a week or maybe a month than they would normally see in an entire season if used by only one person. Is it really fair then to expect these bats to last more than one season at a time?

What can players do or control? Actually quite a bit. They can purchase bats based on durability instead of straight performance. They can purchase balls of moderate compression and force the leagues they play in to do likewise. And finally, if you pay the big dollars for a bat, you have the right to be a little stingy about its use. 

To protect the integrity of the game associations must also protect themselves. Each body has to be cautious not to take the fun out of the game for the players. If an association were to adopt a less lively ball, teams may abandon that association and turn to another competing association because they play with a more lively ball. Sales and revenues may be lost. In this case, team registrations and the number of teams attending the tournaments they offer.

Our opinion is to have all the associations adopt one softball. This softball would have a uniform COR value and a uniform COMPRESSION VALUE stamped on the ball. The manufacturers would be held liable for their production runs. Example: A .47 COR with a COMPRESSION range of 475 to 525 might be a fair ball for every level of play. The object of any game that uses a ball, is to control the ball. The person or team that controls the ball is usually the winner. If each ball in softball were manufactured to be within the guidelines of a uniform criteria (weight, diameter, COR, COMPRESSION VALUE, number of stitches, types of winding, bonding applications and types of polyurethane) that could be used, the ball would be a constant formula. The associations and their affiliates could adopt rules that fit the needs for their own variables, such as time restrictions, scheduling, park sizes, level of play, team and player classifications,… The bat manufacturers and the players would make the necessary adjustments to reach their goals also. Don't let the technology of both bats and balls run rampant, control one of the staples (ball or bat) and you control both. If a compression value were instituted and manufacturers were found negligent in a court of law, your result would be tighter control.

The variables in resolving the issues addressed are complex and political. It is no secret that the harder the ball, the thinner the wall(s), the faster and further a softball travels. This formula equals homerun potential and greater occurrence of injury at all levels. Today's player seems to adapt and make the necessary adjustment to "survive" a game of softball with "minimal" injury. With sales at the forefront of our decision making process, one wonders if there is a standard that can be a compromise. Numbers for test results can be, and are manipulated to acquire desired sales results. Not until the summit of all of the associations get on the same page with COR and COMPRESSION VALES numbers will there remotely be a solution that is satisfactory to the integrity of the sport of softball, and its obvious lack of disciplines. Softball in the form of recreation should have its boundaries and everyone that plays has a right to be educated as to how hard a softball is, or not. The bats would fall in line. Denting would be minimized and warranties on bats could be a major purchase issue.

P.S. A golfer is not hitting a golf ball at people that have to go to work on Monday mornings! Even they adopt and advertise compression values.

---

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on your article. Your opinions are based on a good factual knowledge. The article shows the catch 22 that bat manufactures find themselves in. Performance has been the most important selling point of a softball bat. Durability has been questionable at best on any high performance bat. Actually this was not such a major problem when bats were less expensive and sold with no warranty. Now prices have skyrocketed with the majority of the increase directly related to the warranty issue. A smaller percentage is material and labor costs. My studies show 15-40% of the high end bats are returned for warranty work or replacement at least once. The warranty factor is significant and is added directly to the cost of selling bats.

Now comes ball manufactures, they sell the hot balls and due to COR restrictions, compression has skyrocketed. Bat damage is prevalent with .44COR balls. Our studies on return bats has documented this to be fact. Of course players want balls that don't turn to mush or go out of round. They won't buy the balls that mush, so ball manufactures feed the high compression balls out to keep their market share.

When a ball goes bad, what do you do with it? Generally you throw it away and don't buy the brand again. Hardly anybody asks for a refund or a new ball. When a bat goes bad, the first thing is to get it replaced under warranty or get your money back if you don't like it. However if you like the bat, regardless if it is was the bat or the ball that caused the damage, you buy another bat of the same brand. This is typical of any high end consumer product.

The issue of normal use is directly dependent on who is a normal softball player. Normal? Softball Player? Oxymoron? Could be! I don't have access to studies showing the typical softball players average trips to the plate and BP. Our goal for durability is based upon an average size player, with an average swing speed, 2-3 league games a week and 5-6 tournaments. If the bat is used by a single player, the bat should last as long as 2 seasons. There are so many factors that are uncontrollable though that as long as there is a warranty, a warranty expense factor is built into the bat.