Torpedo Bat Exit Velocity: What 2026 Lab Tests and MLB Data Show
Exit velocity measures how fast a baseball leaves the bat immediately after contact. It is one of the clearest ways to measure the quality of a batted ball, which is why it became central to the debate over whether torpedo bats actually provide a performance advantage.
The evidence available in 2026 gives a more precise answer than the early headlines suggested. A torpedo bat does not automatically produce a higher maximum exit velocity than a comparable traditional wood bat. Controlled laboratory testing found essentially the same peak collision performance. The repeatable difference was where that high-performance region occurred along the barrel.
The torpedo design moves wood away from the barrel tip and toward the sweet-spot area. That can move the productive portion of the barrel closer to where a particular hitter tends to make contact. For the right player, that may improve average contact quality and increase the frequency of hard-hit balls even if the bat's absolute peak power remains similar.
2026 evidence in one sentence: the torpedo bat is better understood as a way to relocate and potentially widen the productive hitting zone than as a bat that simply adds a fixed amount of exit velocity.
Torpedo Bat Exit Velocity Numbers at a Glance
Controlled Peak BBCOR
Essentially Equal Nathan, Smith & Russell 2026 — all four tested maple bats reached essentially the same peak BBCOR.Productive Zone Shift
~0.6 in. Inward 2026 experiment — one torpedo performance curve nearly matched the standard bats after accounting for a 0.6-inch shift.Early 18-Player Average EV
+0.48 mph Sportscasting analysis through May 20, 2025 — 11 of 18 users had higher average EV than in 2024.Full-Season Hard-Hit Signal
13 of 16 Improved UC Berkeley Sports Analytics, January 2026 — full-season comparison of confirmed users.Statcast Hard-Hit Threshold
95+ mph EV Baseball Savant / MLB definition of a hard-hit batted ball.What Exit Velocity Actually Measures
MLB Statcast defines exit velocity as the speed of the baseball immediately after it comes off the bat. Average exit velocity is calculated across a hitter's batted-ball events.
Exit velocity is affected by several variables at once. The incoming pitch speed matters. So does the speed of the bat at the impact point, where along the barrel contact occurs and how efficiently the bat-ball system returns energy to the baseball.
A useful simplified relationship used by Alan Nathan is:
In this equation, q is the collision efficiency. A more efficient collision produces a higher exit velocity when the other variables are held constant.
Collision efficiency is affected by the ball-bat coefficient of restitution (BBCOR), the bat's recoil and its vibrational response. That is why the location of contact along a wood barrel matters: different locations do not return energy to the baseball equally efficiently.
Source 1: The 2026 Controlled Laboratory Study
The strongest torpedo-bat evidence now comes from Alan Nathan of the University of Illinois, Lloyd Smith of Washington State University and Daniel Russell of Penn State University. Their 2026 research provided the first controlled experimental comparison specifically designed to test torpedo and standard baseball bats.
The researchers had four maple bats manufactured for the experiment: two standard bats and two torpedo bats. The profiles duplicated a standard model used by one MLB player in 2024 and a torpedo model used by the same player in 2025.
Importantly, the bats were similar in length, weight and moment of inertia. That allowed the researchers to study barrel performance without assuming that the torpedo bats would automatically be swung faster.
How the Bats Were Tested
Baseballs were fired from an air cannon at different locations along stationary bats. Light gates measured the incoming and rebounding ball speeds, allowing the researchers to calculate BBCOR across the barrel. Modal testing was also used to measure the bats' bending-vibration characteristics.
This is a much stronger method for isolating the bat itself than comparing one player's statistics from one MLB season with another.
What the 2026 Test Found
| Laboratory Finding | Result | Exit Velocity Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Peak BBCOR | Essentially identical across all four bats | No universal intrinsic power advantage for the torpedo profile was demonstrated. |
| Sweet-spot location | Shifted roughly 0.6 inches on the torpedo design | The high-performance region moved along the barrel toward the hitter's hands. |
| Torpedo T153 | Nearly identical performance curve to standard after the location shift | Strong evidence that relocation, rather than higher peak power, can be the main effect. |
| Torpedo T156 | Wider high-BBCOR region and modest modeled EV advantage | Some individual torpedo bats may outperform, but the researchers linked this partly to natural wood variation. |
| Wood variability | Two identical torpedo profiles behaved differently | Shape alone does not determine the exact EV performance of an individual wood bat. |
The most important result is that all four bats reached essentially the same peak BBCOR. One torpedo sample produced a wider useful region, while the other closely reproduced the standard curve after shifting it along the barrel.
The researchers then used the measured BBCOR data to calculate expected exit velocity under game-like conditions. One torpedo sample showed a modest peak-EV and sweet-spot-width advantage; the other did not. This is why the current evidence does not support assigning every torpedo bat a fixed percentage EV gain.
Source 2: Alan Nathan's 2025 Physics Simulation
Before direct laboratory measurements were available, Alan Nathan modeled a traditional bat and torpedo bat using real diameter profiles from bats used by the same MLB hitter.
The original FanGraphs analysis is still valuable because it predicted the central feature later seen in laboratory testing: the exit-velocity curve changes according to impact location.
What Nathan's Simulation Actually Found
- Maximum EV was approximately the same for the two modeled bats.
- The torpedo bat's maximum shifted approximately 0.5 inch farther from the barrel tip.
- The torpedo performed worse than the standard bat closer to the tip.
- It performed better farther inward, toward the handle.
- The simulated range of impact locations producing more than 100 mph EV was wider for the torpedo bat.
That is more nuanced than saying the torpedo bat generates 5–7% more exit velocity. Nathan's actual conclusion was primarily about the shape and position of the EV curve, not a universal increase in its maximum.
What Happened to the Early “5–7% EV Gain” Claim?
Early torpedo-bat coverage included barrel visualizations and secondary analyses that described sizeable advantages at specific inward contact locations, including figures around 5–7% compared with a traditional profile.
Those analyses helped illustrate an important concept: moving mass changes where along the barrel one bat can outperform another. But they should not now be described as the definitive laboratory result.
The controlled 2026 experiment provides the stronger evidence. It confirmed the location-dependent trade-off, but did not find a universal 5–7% increase in maximum performance. One tested torpedo bat was almost the same as the standard bats except for the shifted performance zone, while another performed somewhat better because its individual inertial and vibrational properties differed.
Updated interpretation: a torpedo bat may produce higher EV than a traditional bat at a particular impact location, but the size of that difference depends on the specific bat, its wood properties, its geometry and where contact occurs. “+5–7%” should not be treated as a universal torpedo-bat performance specification.
Exit Velocity by Barrel Location
| Barrel Area | Traditional Bat | Torpedo Bat | Current Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closer to barrel tip | Retains more diameter and mass | Narrower tip | Both the 2025 model and design geometry indicate a traditional-bat advantage toward the outer tip. |
| Around each bat's peak region | High performance | High performance | Controlled testing found essentially the same peak BBCOR across the tested bats. |
| Farther inward | Performance falls as contact moves away from its peak | Productive zone is shifted inward | A well-fitted torpedo can outperform the standard profile where its relocated productive zone better matches the hitter. |
This barrel-location trade-off is the core reason a torpedo bat can help one hitter without helping another. The useful question is not simply, “Which bat produces more exit velocity?” It is, “Which bat produces its strongest performance where this hitter actually makes contact?”
For the deeper engineering behind that relationship, see our Sweet Spot Science guide.
BBCOR, Collision Efficiency and EV: What Is the Difference?
These terms are closely related, but they are not interchangeable.
| Metric | What It Measures | Why It Matters Here |
|---|---|---|
| Exit Velocity (EV) | Speed of the baseball immediately after contact | The real-world batted-ball output hitters care about. |
| BBCOR | How much relative ball-bat speed is retained through the collision | Allows researchers to compare intrinsic collision performance at different barrel locations. |
| Collision Efficiency (q) | A quantity connecting pitch speed, bat speed and collision behavior to EV | Shows why the same swing can produce different EV depending on contact location and bat properties. |
| Bat Speed | How fast the relevant part of the bat is moving | Higher bat speed can increase EV, but torpedo shape does not guarantee higher bat speed. |
| Hard-Hit Rate | Percentage of batted balls at 95 mph EV or higher | Useful for measuring how often a hitter produces meaningfully hard contact. |
Does a Torpedo Bat Automatically Increase Bat Speed?
No. This is another area where the early explanation became too broad.
Moving mass closer to the hands can reduce moment of inertia, or swing weight. Nathan explained that such a bat may feel quicker and could allow the hitter to accelerate it more easily or adjust later to a pitch.
But that is only one possible torpedo design strategy. A manufacturer can instead use the redistributed mass to increase barrel diameter near the preferred contact region while keeping swing weight similar.
In Nathan's original 2025 comparison, the modeled traditional and torpedo bats had essentially identical MOI. The four bats in the 2026 controlled experiment also had similar inertial properties. Those specific torpedo bats were therefore not designed around a large swing-weight reduction.
Real-player results support the need for caution. In Berkeley's full-season 2025 comparison, only nine of 16 confirmed users increased bat speed, and only four increased it by more than 1 mph.
Year-over-year bat-speed changes should therefore not be treated as direct proof that a torpedo bat caused the increase.
What the Early 18-Player Exit Velocity Study Found
A Sportscasting analysis published using data through May 20, 2025 compared 18 reported torpedo-bat users with their 2024 statistics. It remains useful as an early observational dataset, but it was not a controlled experiment and did not cover the full season.
| Early Study Finding | Result | How to Interpret It Now |
|---|---|---|
| Players with higher average EV | 11 of 18 (61%) | A positive early signal, but not evidence that the bat alone caused the increase. |
| Players with lower average EV | 7 of 18 (39%) | Shows that EV improvement was not universal. |
| Average change across the group | +0.48 mph | Small positive group change during an early-season sample. |
| Largest reported gain | Anthony Volpe: +3.3 mph | A notable individual change, but year-over-year comparisons include many non-bat variables. |
The important methodological limitation is causality. Comparing 2024 with the first weeks of 2025 does not hold swing mechanics, strength, health, pitch mix, opponent quality or usage of different bat models constant.
These results therefore tell us what happened to the players, not exactly how much of the change was caused by the torpedo bat.
The Full-Season Hard-Hit Rate Evidence
The most useful later player analysis was published by UC Berkeley Sports Analytics in January 2026 after the full 2025 season had finished.
Among 16 confirmed torpedo-bat users with sufficient data in both seasons, 13 increased their hard-hit rate from 2024 to 2025. Seven increased by more than four percentage points.
This is important because MLB Statcast defines a hard-hit ball as one with an exit velocity of 95 mph or higher. Hard-hit rate therefore measures how frequently a player crosses a meaningful EV threshold rather than simply averaging all weak and strong contact together.
The same Berkeley analysis found much smaller and less consistent changes in bat speed. Only nine players increased bat speed at all, and only four increased by more than 1 mph.
That combination is consistent with the contact-location explanation: hitters may be producing hard contact more frequently even without substantially increasing how fast they swing.
Average EV vs. Hard-Hit Rate vs. Maximum EV
These metrics answer different questions and should not be treated as interchangeable.
Average Exit Velocity
Average EV includes every tracked batted ball, including weak grounders, mishits and softly hit balls. It is useful, but a few very weak contacts can pull the average down.
Hard-Hit Rate
Hard-hit rate asks how often a hitter reaches at least 95 mph. For a bat designed to make the productive barrel region better match a hitter's contact distribution, this can be especially useful.
Maximum EV
Maximum EV measures a hitter's hardest individual batted ball. A torpedo bat does not need to raise maximum EV to be useful if it helps the hitter get closer to that level more frequently.
EV50 and Similar Metrics
Baseball Savant's EV50 focuses on the hardest 50% of a hitter's batted balls, reducing the influence of obvious mishits. Metrics like this can provide useful context alongside average EV.
What the Evidence Does — and Does Not — Support
- PEAK BAT PERFORMANCE: No universal torpedo advantage. The 2026 controlled study found essentially identical peak BBCOR across all four tested bats.
- EV LOCATION: Clearly different. The torpedo design moves the high-performance region farther inward along the barrel.
- INWARD CONTACT: Can favor the torpedo. A hitter whose normal contact is closer to the hands may gain EV on those contacts if the torpedo's productive region is better aligned.
- TIP CONTACT: Can favor the traditional profile. Removing wood from the end creates a real trade-off toward the outer barrel.
- SWEET-SPOT WIDTH: Potential advantage, not guaranteed. Nathan's simulation predicted a wider productive EV region. One of the two 2026 torpedo samples confirmed it; the other did not.
- AVERAGE EV: Some users improved. Early player data was positive overall, but observational results cannot isolate the bat from other changes.
- HARD-HIT RATE: Stronger full-season signal. Thirteen of 16 confirmed users increased their 95+ mph hard-hit percentage in the Berkeley analysis.
- BAT SPEED: Not automatically higher. Torpedo bats can be built with lower MOI, but the shape itself does not guarantee a faster swing.
Frequently Asked Questions: Torpedo Bat Exit Velocity
Not universally. Controlled 2026 testing found essentially the same peak BBCOR across comparable torpedo and standard maple bats. The torpedo changes where along the barrel the productive region occurs, so it can produce better exit velocity at certain impact locations for a hitter whose contact pattern matches the design.
There is no verified fixed EV gain. Early analyses sometimes reported larger advantages at specific contact locations, while an early 18-player MLB comparison found an average year-over-year increase of 0.48 mph across the group. Neither number should be treated as a universal equipment specification. The effect depends on the specific bat and where the hitter makes contact.
Researchers tested two standard and two torpedo maple bats. All four reached essentially the same peak BBCOR. One torpedo bat closely matched the standard performance curve after accounting for an approximately 0.6-inch shift in its productive region, while the other had a wider productive area and modest modeled EV advantage influenced partly by natural wood variation.
Nathan's 2025 simulation found that maximum EV was approximately the same for the traditional and torpedo bats he modeled. The torpedo maximum moved roughly half an inch inward, performed worse closer to the tip and better farther toward the hands. Its modeled region above 100 mph EV was also wider.
Wood is a natural material, so two bats with the same external shape can have different inertial and vibrational properties. The 2026 study found measurable differences between its two identically shaped torpedo bats, which is one reason a single performance percentage should not be applied to every torpedo bat.
MLB Statcast defines a hard-hit ball as a batted ball with an exit velocity of 95 mph or higher. Hard-hit rate is the percentage of a hitter's batted balls that reach or exceed that threshold.
Average EV includes every batted ball, including very weak mishits. A torpedo bat's main potential advantage is making the productive portion of the barrel better match where a hitter usually makes contact. If that converts more near-misses into 95+ mph contact, hard-hit rate can improve even without a large change in peak or average EV.
No. Lower moment of inertia can make a bat quicker and may help some hitters generate more speed, but lower MOI also changes collision dynamics. Torpedo bats can also be designed with swing weight similar to a traditional bat. The models used in Nathan's 2025 comparison and the bats in the 2026 experiment had similar MOI, so a large automatic bat-speed advantage should not be assumed.
Continue Exploring Torpedo Bat Performance
Gallery
