WTH is going on with Decker softballs?!

[TWmccoy]

So, we played a tourny today. Our team got 2 dozen brand new Decker classic + balls to use. We had hit Deckers in years past, and I felt like they were very good performing balls.

The 2 dozen we had today have a completely different appearance from older Deckers. The stitching seems poor and the covers aren't tight. They simply don't look proper.

Hitting the balls, everyone could tell immediately that something wasn't right. These new Decker C+s feel super soft and pillowy. They didn't jump off the bat at all and died listlessly in the outfield. We ended up pulling all the Deckers and scrounging up a few old composite Hycors and X Rocks. Even in beat up condition the X Rocks and Hycors were light years better than the Deckers.

I have no explanation here. Anyone else hit these new Deckers lately? Thoughts? I don't have any pics of the balls, but they just don't look right. They don't perform at an acceptable level either. To me these balls seem like a slipshod product.

 

[The BP Hero]

Brand loyalty aside, that's been an issue with their ASA balls too. They're either really good or really bad in terms of visual presentation and performance but for whatever reason I never see much of the same issue with their USSSA and NSA balls.

 

[TWmccoy]

Brand loyalty aside, that's been an issue with their ASA balls too. They're either really good or really bad in terms of visual presentation and performance but for whatever reason I never see much of the same issue with their USSSA and NSA balls.

These balls were appalling. We literally had to dig through bat bags to find other balls to use. These were worse than the lowliest beat up league ball on a 90 degree day.

About 5 years ago Decker made great C+s. I don't know why they don't anymore.

 

[Country469]

The cores can get passes throught with a +/- tolerance of 25 lbs either way. Decker probably bought some ****ty cores.

They may have been audited and failed with previous models as well. See that bullet ball company that is not defunct

 

[TWmccoy]

Yeah, I know some .52s a few years ago were out of spec. Some of Baden's older balls were hard and really jumpy. I've definitely noticed some companies toning down the .52s lately.

These Deckers were really god awful though. Everyone on the team noticed it and was commenting.

 

[Country469]

Its not out of the realm of possibilities they got stored incorrectly and the glue didnt cure right for the covers. Unfortunately I would be suspect of a lot of products coming out of china now.

Hell ban softball games to stop coronavirus alrady giuse

 

[jhitman]

So, we played a tourny today. Our team got 2 dozen brand new Decker classic + balls to use. We had hit Deckers in years past, and I felt like they were very good performing balls.

The 2 dozen we had today have a completely different appearance from older Deckers. The stitching seems poor and the covers aren't tight. They simply don't look proper.

Hitting the balls, everyone could tell immediately that something wasn't right. These new Decker C+s feel super soft and pillowy. They didn't jump off the bat at all and died listlessly in the outfield. We ended up pulling all the Deckers and scrounging up a few old composite Hycors and X Rocks. Even in beat up condition the X Rocks and Hycors were light years better than the Deckers.

I have no explanation here. Anyone else hit these new Deckers lately? Thoughts? I don't have any pics of the balls, but they just don't look right. They don't perform at an acceptable level either. To me these balls seem like a slipshod product.

That's weird that you bring this up. My buddy and I just ordered a dozen stadium softballs. We had an old bunch from about 6 years ago and were by far the best softballs I have ever hit. We got a dozen last month and have gone out 2-3 times for BP and they are complete duds. Nothing like the original ones we had years ago. They were going less distance than used 52 cor 300 comp softballs. We had a few of the old ones left and still hit them and they were flying 30' past the new ones. Wish I could get my money back and get anything else in it's place. Must have gotten a bad batch.

 

[Country469]

Cores get harder as they get older, but I know TW knows that so I'm speaking to myself here as far as competent posters go.

 

[TWmccoy]

That's weird that you bring this up. My buddy and I just ordered a dozen stadium softballs. We had an old bunch from about 6 years ago and were by far the best softballs I have ever hit. We got a dozen last month and have gone out 2-3 times for BP and they are complete duds. Nothing like the original ones we had years ago. They were going less distance than used 52 cor 300 comp softballs. We had a few of the old ones left and still hit them and they were flying 30' past the new ones. Wish I could get my money back and get anything else in it's place. Must have gotten a bad batch.

Dudley has been known for having core problems regarding stadium balls. From year to year you hear things online about how "hot" the "current" batch of stadium balls are. On Dudley balls there are two small letters down by the USSSA logo and patent numbers that indicate the batch number. I have a whole bunch of stadiums I've found in FL over the last decade from many different batches. Some are definitely hotter than others. Last year USSSA used stadiums in Viera for the major world series from batch IU. Those things are absolute rocks, harder than other batches.

The great majority of stadiums I've hit seem like good, consistent performers. Every once in a while you'll see one that stands out as being softer than the rest though. A few years ago we had a HR derby here with stadiums that I thought were duds. The balls weren't very hard or very flighty. Usually you can't spot a dud stadium ball until it gets hot. That's when a bad core will really show up.

As to the other post, I agree that balls get harder as they age. I have a bunch of white balls from before 2005. They've sat through many winters in bins outside. I the the core dries out over time and hardens. I also have a bunch of ZN classic Ms from Orlando in 2010. It'd be interesting to get a compression test on those cores now. I guarantee they're harder than they started out at.

Moral of the story is, I guess you don't know what you're getting when you order balls. Cores definitely change from year to year. That said, lately I've been seeing a LOT of variance in the feel and performance of .52s. Some are great, and others are total dead mush. The Decker thing was just startling because for years their balls had been some of the best performers.

 

[TWmccoy]

Its not out of the realm of possibilities they got stored incorrectly and the glue didnt cure right for the covers. Unfortunately I would be suspect of a lot of products coming out of china now.

Hell ban softball games to stop coronavirus alrady giuse

I'll try to grab one of those Deckers and take pics so you can see what I'm saying about the cover. Its the crappiest cover stitching I've probably ever seen on a softball, especially a supposed premium one.

 

[jhitman]

Dudley has been known for having core problems regarding stadium balls. From year to year you hear things online about how "hot" the "current" batch of stadium balls are. On Dudley balls there are two small letters down by the USSSA logo and patent numbers that indicate the batch number. I have a whole bunch of stadiums I've found in FL over the last decade from many different batches. Some are definitely hotter than others. Last year USSSA used stadiums in Viera for the major world series from batch IU. Those things are absolute rocks, harder than other batches.

The great majority of stadiums I've hit seem like good, consistent performers. Every once in a while you'll see one that stands out as being softer than the rest though. A few years ago we had a HR derby here with stadiums that I thought were duds. The balls weren't very hard or very flighty. Usually you can't spot a dud stadium ball until it gets hot. That's when a bad core will really show up.

As to the other post, I agree that balls get harder as they age. I have a bunch of white balls from before 2005. They've sat through many winters in bins outside. I the the core dries out over time and hardens. I also have a bunch of ZN classic Ms from Orlando in 2010. It'd be interesting to get a compression test on those cores now. I guarantee they're harder than they started out at.

Moral of the story is, I guess you don't know what you're getting when you order balls. Cores definitely change from year to year. That said, lately I've been seeing a LOT of variance in the feel and performance of .52s. Some are great, and others are total dead mush. The Decker thing was just startling because for years their balls had been some of the best performers.

The ones I have do seem softer than the othersI have. The think I didn't like is there was no carry to the balls at all. It felt like hitting a 52 and actually the Trump Stote 52's I had were actually out hitting the stadium softballs. Basically just ordered those balls to help break in our new bats faster and I guess they still will help some with that....very disappointed with them.

I agree on the Deckers too. We had them in our draft league 2-3 years ago and those balls were really flying. Last Fall we had them again 44 cor 375 comps. Although the ball was okay they weren't flying as well as 2-3 years ago. It was very noticeable amongst the hitter that actually can really hit. I guess you're right you really don't know what you're going to get with softballs from year to year.