The Chicago Cubs’ relationship with Vullo Bats looks like a smart investment in hitting development. Friday’s doubleheader showed the limits of that investment
Chicago collected 14 hits against Boston but scored only three runs while losing twice. The Cubs went 2-for-11 with runners in scoring position in the opener and 0-for-3 in the nightcap. Those results invite a question as the playoffs approach: What can a better bat solve when an offense stops scoring?
The Athletic reported Saturday that Vullo makes the training bats used across Chicago’s minor-league system. Michael Busch and Dansby Swanson are among the major leaguers who have used its custom bats. Alex Bregman told the outlet he prefers Marucci, reminding readers that not every hitter uses the same bat.
The Biggest Benefit May Be Below Chicago
The value of a clubwide training supply is consistency and choice. Chicago can request weights and shapes suited to its development program, then work with a small manufacturer on individual adjustments. A prospect without a major equipment deal gets access to an option shaped around his swing, not whatever is available.
Vullo’s model descriptions show why those choices matter. A slower taper puts more barrel farther from the hands; a quicker taper changes the feel and balance. The useful question is where a hitter tends to meet the ball, not which model sounds most powerful. Extra mass nearer the hands may reward one player’s contact point but disrupt another player’s timing. The fit must survive pitching.
The Athletic’s organizational rankings show Cubs minor leaguers rose from 21st to eighth in contact in the latest comparison, while ranking 14th in maximum exit velocity. That points toward more frequent contact as a promising sign, but does not prove the bats caused the change. Coaching, player turnover and opposing pitchers also affect those figures.
Chicago’s major-league offense has led baseball in runs, according to The Athletic. That success likewise cannot be assigned to Vullo: Some Cubs swing other brands, and an effective lineup depends on the hitters and their approach.
Friday Exposed a Different October Question
MLB’s bat-tracking guide distinguishes bat speed from squared-up contact. A tailored bat could help a player get the barrel to a preferred contact point without sacrificing speed. It cannot choose the pitch for him or guarantee a hit with runners aboard.
That distinction matters after Chicago’s 16 consecutive scoreless innings Friday. Seven of its nightcap hits were singles. The issue was turning baserunners into runs, not a demonstrated lack of power in the wood.
The real test of the Cubs’ investment requires comparing the same hitters with different bats against similar pitches over enough swings. Public box scores cannot isolate that effect. A useful internal comparison would record bat model, pitch location and contact quality, then check whether any gains persist. For October, Chicago has a more immediate measure: whether its hitters use their chances before a three-game series runs out.
Cubs’ Bat Experiment Has a Limit October Could Expose