43 feet at 14U?

[AlwaysImprove]

I understand the logic of what you're saying. As a matter of fact, when Gold first moved to 43 ft, it was debated many times on eteamz that it would actually HELP the pitching because the ball would have "more time to move". But alas, it never materialized as scores balooned in the Gold division overnight.

kevin's point is well founded. But I wonder if all of the offensive increase can be attributed to pitching distance. Seems that a real emphasis on quality hitting mechanics was concomitant with the distance change. Maybe a combination?

What it WASN'T was bats. Even bats which break in past the limits do not approach performance that was LEGAL in the past. Plus the ball compression change from 525 to 375 a half dozen or so years agonegatively affected performance.


As for pitching distance, it seems to me that could be argued either way. Three extra feet could put extra strain on an arm, I suppose, although I don't realistically see how a pitcher can throw harder just because she is further away. Wouldn't she throw harder to be more effective from closer? - if she COULD throw harder, I mean. But maybe, I don't know. A trade-off, though, in my mind, for the fact that she has another 3 feet to react to a batted ball hit at her. And could avoid injury there.

Best regards,

Scott

I disagree that bats are not a factor. Look what happened at Hawaii when NCAA started compression testing. Look what happened at UofA when they self regulated and ditched the famed Nike bat. Look what happened to UCLA this year. Last year there were at least 4 hr's hit over the fence on missed swings by UCLA's players. This year, none.

The decrease in cheating actually helps those kids that have actually worked hard to develop their swing.

I agree offense has increased tons. I agree that bat performance, overall, has decreased. I agree the reduction in ball compression would have tended to reduce offense, but you actually saw offense grow.

The two contributing factors are improved swing mechanics and moving the pitcher back. I think improved swings is a much bigger contributor. You see a lot more kids able to hit the ball hard at all levels on many teams. 10 years ago you saw one big hitter per team. UofA had theirs, ASU had theirs, UW had theirs, but the rest of the kids mechanics were not that great. Now it is common to see teams with groups of 4-6 hitters that can hit great.

[Gone in 2.6]

I would agree that a major shift in the softball hitting culture is a major factor. I guess my personal experiences color my view to make me feel that the 3 feet is a bigger factor than some are giving it credit for.

1. The MAJORITY of So Cal's dominant/top pitchers in "our" age group seemed to become ordinary (some fell off the map altogether) overnight when they moved to 43 feet. They were facing the same hitters they had always faced for the most part so I find it hard to attribute it mostly to a sudden earth shaking hitting revolution between Nationals and fall ball in 2007.

2. "We" were with the same pitcher in the move from 40' to 43'. She was one of the handful that continued to be a force in Gold (and continues to excel in the NCAA). But I noticed the strikeout totals were way down from what they were at 40' in 16's (for our hitters too). Again, against mostly the same 'ole players we had been seeing for years.

It's possible my experience was a fluke and it only happened with "our" group of girls.

Either way, I can't deny that the hitting mechanics are huge. I've had a front row seat to the difference they make (thanks Ssarge).

[anonlooker]

Re: the bats Hawaii used, the coach had a bunch in storage and broke them out that season. They were not illegal, technically, but may not have passed testing had it been implemented at the time. Here is some of the article, with Pat Murphy only kinda complaining, but not really.

Hawaii powered its way to a national home run record and into the Women’s Col­lege World Se­ries with the 2005 East­on Stealth SCN4B model. That bat hit the home run that elim­inated top-seeded Al­abama at the Tuscaloosa Super Regional.

Last year, bats weren’t tested before be­ing al­lowed for use in postsea­son NCAA play. Starting this week, they will be.

East­on did not submit the 2005 Stealth model for approval this sea­son, so it nev­er under­went the scruti­ny that bats are fac­ing this sea­son.

Still, Murphy is sure. “That was the one bat ev­eryone suspected was il­le­gal,” Murphy said. “Ev­erybody knew that was the case. It was just too old, and the more you used it the hotter it got.”

Bob Coolen, Hawaii’s coach, points out that Florida and Georgia Tech, among oth­er schools, used the same bats last sea­son.

“I saw them all over the place,” he said. “They were cher­ished. They were rev­ered.”

Al­abama used the same model when it came out. The Crim­son Tide wore out its supply, hitting its own share of home runs.

“All of ours cracked,” Murphy said. “You could see through the barrel because it got so thin.”

Murphy doesn’t blame Hawaii.

“At the time, it was le­gal,” he said. “If we would have had one, we prob­a­bly would have used it because we knew it was a high-performance bat. Whoev­er had it, used it.”

When Murphy thinks about that East­on Stealth model, he is re­m­inded of the walk-off home run Hawaii hit, and the one Florida hit with it the year before to elim­inate the Crim­son Tide at the World Se­ries.

“I’m sure last year if they would have done this, those bats would not have passed,” Murphy said. “Noth­ing you can do now. It’s all af­ter the fact.”

The lin­gering question is how schools like Hawaii man­aged to obtain bats that East­on had long since stopped manufac­tur­ing. Coolen said he obtained the bats from East­on back when they were made and kept them in stor­age.

“Af­ter five years they broke in,” he said. “It was a popular bat, and we were very fortunate to have six of them in our backlog that we nev­er threw away. We only al­lowed those bats to be used in games. Three of them broke by the end of the year. Two of them broke at the World Se­ries.”

Hawaii’s coach makes no apolo­gies. He be­lieves the con­tro­ver­sy over the bats only take away from what his team accomplished.

“It’s unfortunate that a lot of people point the fin­ger and say it was only the bat,” he said.

[ontheblack]

I agree with 2.6 about the impact on pitching at 43 vs 40. Just look at the rather large increase in run production in HS since the rubber was moved back.

With my own kid, the 43' doesnt bother her and she does get better movement with her breaking pitches, but the margin for error on a miss is much less than at 40'. From the hitting side, her average went up 50 points at 43'.

I believe 43' clearly favors the hitter and takes away the advantage of the pure power pitcher.

[Gone in 2.6]

Re: the bats Hawaii used, the coach had a bunch in storage and broke them out that season. They were not illegal, technically, but may not have passed testing had it been implemented at the time. Here is some of the article, with Pat Murphy only kinda complaining, but not really.

Hawaii powered its way to a national home run record and into the Women’s Col­lege World Se­ries with the 2005 East­on Stealth SCN4B model. That bat hit the home run that elim­inated top-seeded Al­abama at the Tuscaloosa Super Regional.

Last year, bats weren’t tested before be­ing al­lowed for use in postsea­son NCAA play. Starting this week, they will be.

East­on did not submit the 2005 Stealth model for approval this sea­son, so it nev­er under­went the scruti­ny that bats are fac­ing this sea­son.

Still, Murphy is sure. “That was the one bat ev­eryone suspected was il­le­gal,” Murphy said. “Ev­erybody knew that was the case. It was just too old, and the more you used it the hotter it got.”

Bob Coolen, Hawaii’s coach, points out that Florida and Georgia Tech, among oth­er schools, used the same bats last sea­son.

“I saw them all over the place,” he said. “They were cher­ished. They were rev­ered.”

Al­abama used the same model when it came out. The Crim­son Tide wore out its supply, hitting its own share of home runs.

“All of ours cracked,” Murphy said. “You could see through the barrel because it got so thin.”

Murphy doesn’t blame Hawaii.

“At the time, it was le­gal,” he said. “If we would have had one, we prob­a­bly would have used it because we knew it was a high-performance bat. Whoev­er had it, used it.”

When Murphy thinks about that East­on Stealth model, he is re­m­inded of the walk-off home run Hawaii hit, and the one Florida hit with it the year before to elim­inate the Crim­son Tide at the World Se­ries.

“I’m sure last year if they would have done this, those bats would not have passed,” Murphy said. “Noth­ing you can do now. It’s all af­ter the fact.”

The lin­gering question is how schools like Hawaii man­aged to obtain bats that East­on had long since stopped manufac­tur­ing. Coolen said he obtained the bats from East­on back when they were made and kept them in stor­age.

“Af­ter five years they broke in,” he said. “It was a popular bat, and we were very fortunate to have six of them in our backlog that we nev­er threw away. We only al­lowed those bats to be used in games. Three of them broke by the end of the year. Two of them broke at the World Se­ries.”

Hawaii’s coach makes no apolo­gies. He be­lieves the con­tro­ver­sy over the bats only take away from what his team accomplished.

“It’s unfortunate that a lot of people point the fin­ger and say it was only the bat,” he said.

As I understand it, the NCAA tested two bats from each team at the conclusion of that WCWS. As I was told by someone in the know, only two teams passed. I figure Tennessee was one of the two teams as dd's bat was selected for testing and she received it back (I'm surprised they didn't confiscate that piece of crap for being too dead. Bunting advantage ).

I do not know who the other team was

[AlwaysImprove]

Re: the bats Hawaii used, the coach had a bunch in storage and broke them out that season. They were not illegal, technically, but may not have passed testing had it been implemented at the time. Here is some of the article, with Pat Murphy only kinda complaining, but not really.

Hawaii powered its way to a national home run record and into the Women’s Col­lege World Se­ries with the 2005 East­on Stealth SCN4B model. That bat hit the home run that elim­inated top-seeded Al­abama at the Tuscaloosa Super Regional.

Last year, bats weren’t tested before be­ing al­lowed for use in postsea­son NCAA play. Starting this week, they will be.

East­on did not submit the 2005 Stealth model for approval this sea­son, so it nev­er under­went the scruti­ny that bats are fac­ing this sea­son.

Still, Murphy is sure. “That was the one bat ev­eryone suspected was il­le­gal,” Murphy said. “Ev­erybody knew that was the case. It was just too old, and the more you used it the hotter it got.”

Bob Coolen, Hawaii’s coach, points out that Florida and Georgia Tech, among oth­er schools, used the same bats last sea­son.

“I saw them all over the place,” he said. “They were cher­ished. They were rev­ered.”

Al­abama used the same model when it came out. The Crim­son Tide wore out its supply, hitting its own share of home runs.

“All of ours cracked,” Murphy said. “You could see through the barrel because it got so thin.”

Murphy doesn’t blame Hawaii.

“At the time, it was le­gal,” he said. “If we would have had one, we prob­a­bly would have used it because we knew it was a high-performance bat. Whoev­er had it, used it.”

When Murphy thinks about that East­on Stealth model, he is re­m­inded of the walk-off home run Hawaii hit, and the one Florida hit with it the year before to elim­inate the Crim­son Tide at the World Se­ries.

“I’m sure last year if they would have done this, those bats would not have passed,” Murphy said. “Noth­ing you can do now. It’s all af­ter the fact.”

The lin­gering question is how schools like Hawaii man­aged to obtain bats that East­on had long since stopped manufac­tur­ing. Coolen said he obtained the bats from East­on back when they were made and kept them in stor­age.

“Af­ter five years they broke in,” he said. “It was a popular bat, and we were very fortunate to have six of them in our backlog that we nev­er threw away. We only al­lowed those bats to be used in games. Three of them broke by the end of the year. Two of them broke at the World Se­ries.”

Hawaii’s coach makes no apolo­gies. He be­lieves the con­tro­ver­sy over the bats only take away from what his team accomplished.

“It’s unfortunate that a lot of people point the fin­ger and say it was only the bat,” he said.

Ha! That is classic. Turns out this season proves it was the bat. Hitters that tore it up, barely made an impact this year. I know a number of hitters that routinely hit gap shots about 10 feet short of clearing the fence. Give me a bat with an extra 10 feet and they go to be a major home run hitter.

While the bats may not have been technically illegal, the introduction of the bat compression testing shows that these bats are now considered illegal, even though they are the same bat, and the rules have not changed. Just a different view of what is legal.

Candrea used the same term, not technically illegal, when referring to the nike bat. I believe that in Az, Hw and UCLA bats, the coaches were confident that the bats were not technically illegal. They can take that position because the bats were not altered in any fashion, no shaving, no rolling. They were found to get hot with break-in, probably hitting thousands of high density cage balls.

Agree, pitching distance change weeded out a lot of pitchers. My daughter actually can be more effective at 43, but she has to have everything working, speed, spin, change. If she is off just a little that extra 3' kills.

[ssarge]

I disagree that bats are not a factor. Look what happened at Hawaii when NCAA started compression testing. Look what happened at UofA when they self regulated and ditched the famed Nike bat. Look what happened to UCLA this year. Last year there were at least 4 hr's hit over the fence on missed swings by UCLA's players. This year, none.

I didn't say they weren't a factor, I said hot bats today are not as hot as legal bats in the past. And they aren't.

The hottest bat the NCAA has tested - according to Dee's presentation - was a little over 104. Now, that is a ridiculous number, and almost certainly represented a bat that was shaved. 104 is as much hotter than a legal (98) bat as that 98 bat is hotter than a high performing wood bat, which have been tested a little over 90. But The Freak II and some of the titanium bats - once legal - were over 110. This is according to the research and presentation by Lloyd Smith, WSU. which was used by ASA as the basis for the f2219 bat safety test currently used. It's good data.

Additionally, ball compression at the time was 525, as opposed to 400 in college (375 in JO) today. The compression measurement refers to the number of pounds of pressure required to compress a ball 1/4 inch. The higher the number, the less the ball compresses, and you don't want the ball to compress, because it isn't areodynamic, and has no efficient rebound properties (COR, or coefficient of restitution) as does a bat. The ball HAS been deadened significantly as well.

Bottom line is that balls do NOT come off of bats today as fast as in the past. Even doctored bats (and it wasn't like the hotter bats in the previous generation weren't being doctored too, to make THEM even hotter).

One thing that probably IS true today is that superior engineering has made the sweet spot larger on today's bats, so they may well approach maximum exit speeds more often. But the raw speeds are NOT greater.

Regards,

Scott

[UmpSteve]

I disagree that bats are not a factor. Look what happened at Hawaii when NCAA started compression testing. Look what happened at UofA when they self regulated and ditched the famed Nike bat. Look what happened to UCLA this year. Last year there were at least 4 hr's hit over the fence on missed swings by UCLA's players. This year, none.

I didn't say they weren't a factor, I said hot bats today are not as hot as legal bats in the past. And they aren't.

The hottest bat the NCAA has tested - according to Dee's presentation - was a little over 104. Now, that is a ridiculous number, and almost certainly represented a bat that was shaved. 104 is as much hotter than a legal (98) bat as that 98 bat is hotter than a high performing wood bat, which have been tested a little over 90. But The Freak II and some of the titanium bats - once legal - were over 110. This is according to the research and presentation by Lloyd Smith, WSU. which was used by ASA as the basis for the f2219 bat safety test currently used. It's good data.

Additionally, ball compression at the time was 525, as opposed to 400 in college (375 in JO) today. The compression measurement refers to the number of pounds of pressure required to compress a ball 1/4 inch. The higher the number, the less the ball compresses, and you don't want the ball to compress, because it isn't areodynamic, and has no efficient rebound properties (COR, or coefficient of restitution) as does a bat. The ball HAS been deadened significantly as well.

Bottom line is that balls do NOT come off of bats today as fast as in the past. Even doctored bats (and it wasn't like the hotter bats in the previous generation weren't being doctored too, to make THEM even hotter).

One thing that probably IS true today is that superior engineering has made the sweet spot larger on today's bats, so they may well approach maximum exit speeds more often. But the raw speeds are NOT greater.

Regards,

Scott

Your analysis disregards the additional factors in ball exit speed, the bat speed generated by the batter as well as the pitched ball speed. The testing by Dr. Smith uses a fixed bat/ball collision speed for a consistent point of comparison (as must be in laboratory conditions testing the bat), but I strongly doubt that these factors have remained the same over the years.

I believe that the average pitched ball speed has increased somewhat; not talking about the exceptions that might occasionally hit 70 mph, but the average, where MOST D1 pitchers are now in the mid-to-upper 60's range. And we all know that the batters are generating more bat speed than ever before; better mechanics, more strength training, better nutrition, better athletes.

So I wouldn't be as quick to reach the conclusion that balls don't come off the bat as quickly as before. The (legal) equipment certainly has less to do with it now; I agree with that part. But the players have pushed the performance back up.

[AlwaysImprove]

I disagree that bats are not a factor. Look what happened at Hawaii when NCAA started compression testing. Look what happened at UofA when they self regulated and ditched the famed Nike bat. Look what happened to UCLA this year. Last year there were at least 4 hr's hit over the fence on missed swings by UCLA's players. This year, none.

I didn't say they weren't a factor, I said hot bats today are not as hot as legal bats in the past. And they aren't.

The hottest bat the NCAA has tested - according to Dee's presentation - was a little over 104. Now, that is a ridiculous number, and almost certainly represented a bat that was shaved. 104 is as much hotter than a legal (98) bat as that 98 bat is hotter than a high performing wood bat, which have been tested a little over 90. But The Freak II and some of the titanium bats - once legal - were over 110. This is according to the research and presentation by Lloyd Smith, WSU. which was used by ASA as the basis for the f2219 bat safety test currently used. It's good data.

Additionally, ball compression at the time was 525, as opposed to 400 in college (375 in JO) today. The compression measurement refers to the number of pounds of pressure required to compress a ball 1/4 inch. The higher the number, the less the ball compresses, and you don't want the ball to compress, because it isn't areodynamic, and has no efficient rebound properties (COR, or coefficient of restitution) as does a bat. The ball HAS been deadened significantly as well.

Bottom line is that balls do NOT come off of bats today as fast as in the past. Even doctored bats (and it wasn't like the hotter bats in the previous generation weren't being doctored too, to make THEM even hotter).

One thing that probably IS true today is that superior engineering has made the sweet spot larger on today's bats, so they may well approach maximum exit speeds more often. But the raw speeds are NOT greater.

Regards,

Scott

Agree with all of your points. 1) Hot bats today are not as hot as the Freak was. 2) Also agree that overall NCAA and ASA have made a huge dent in the bat issue. 3) Ball compression greatly reduced exit speeds.

This year you can clearly say what happened on the field looked legitimate. The girls have worked hard on their swing and the extra 3' of pitching distance were the only factors.

I disagree with your claim that the only way to get to 104 is a shave. I would be willing to bet money that you buy a Phoenix rolled by the dawg and send it for testing and I predict you will get right around 104, maybe a bit higher. Same for the 05 Easton Hawaii used. Same for the Nike bat. I also think the old yellow Louisville Slugger would work in this test.

[Gone in 2.6]

I disagree that bats are not a factor. Look what happened at Hawaii when NCAA started compression testing. Look what happened at UofA when they self regulated and ditched the famed Nike bat. Look what happened to UCLA this year. Last year there were at least 4 hr's hit over the fence on missed swings by UCLA's players. This year, none.

I didn't say they weren't a factor, I said hot bats today are not as hot as legal bats in the past. And they aren't.

The hottest bat the NCAA has tested - according to Dee's presentation - was a little over 104. Now, that is a ridiculous number, and almost certainly represented a bat that was shaved. 104 is as much hotter than a legal (98) bat as that 98 bat is hotter than a high performing wood bat, which have been tested a little over 90. But The Freak II and some of the titanium bats - once legal - were over 110. This is according to the research and presentation by Lloyd Smith, WSU. which was used by ASA as the basis for the f2219 bat safety test currently used. It's good data.

Additionally, ball compression at the time was 525, as opposed to 400 in college (375 in JO) today. The compression measurement refers to the number of pounds of pressure required to compress a ball 1/4 inch. The higher the number, the less the ball compresses, and you don't want the ball to compress, because it isn't areodynamic, and has no efficient rebound properties (COR, or coefficient of restitution) as does a bat. The ball HAS been deadened significantly as well.

Bottom line is that balls do NOT come off of bats today as fast as in the past. Even doctored bats (and it wasn't like the hotter bats in the previous generation weren't being doctored too, to make THEM even hotter).

One thing that probably IS true today is that superior engineering has made the sweet spot larger on today's bats, so they may well approach maximum exit speeds more often. But the raw speeds are NOT greater.

Regards,

Scott

Agree with all of your points. 1) Hot bats today are not as hot as the Freak was. 2) Also agree that overall NCAA and ASA have made a huge dent in the bat issue. 3) Ball compression greatly reduced exit speeds.

This year you can clearly say what happened on the field looked legitimate. The girls have worked hard on their swing and the extra 3' of pitching distance were the only factors.

I disagree with your claim that the only way to get to 104 is a shave. I would be willing to bet money that you buy a Phoenix rolled by the dawg and send it for testing and I predict you will get right around 104, maybe a bit higher. Same for the 05 Easton Hawaii used. Same for the Nike bat. I also think the old yellow Louisville Slugger would work in this test.

I do not believe that everything on the field was legitimate this past season because of some testing in tournaments and some but not all conferences testing for conference play. One major conference team hit a huge amount of home runs this season. When they got to regionals, they had some bats confiscated. They scored 2 runs against a tiny mid major, 1 run against a BCS team and zero runs against another BCS team. There was only one All-American pitcher in the regional and they did not face her.

I saw other home runs that did not pass the eye ball test. It's better but, imo, more needs to be done

If one could get SIX MPH out of bat rolling, I question why anyone would bother shaving a bat and risk the 'ole cap popping off frequently scenario.