Disclaimer: This site uses affiliate links. Learn More.
By Bat Digest | Last Updated November 17, 2022
We have spent a lot of time over the last several weeks getting ready for this review.
We’d guess no less than 4 hours in the cage, two tournaments among several different hitters, the Little League World Series, consulting our 2015 and 2016 Easton MAKO reviews and our 2017 Easton Lineup to put together this review.
The Beast is a proven workhorse. Although it never quite got to CF status in USSSA, it’s 2 1/4 version was legit and the BBCOR Easton MAKO Beast was a reasonable option for the light swinging two-piece composite lover.
Compared to the 2016 Easton MAKO we didn’t find any remarkable changes (at least in the 2 5/8 version). Easton has claimed in a few YouTube videos the Beast barrel is the ‘hottest’ ever and such a claim would be impossible for us to measure.
Some have written to us claiming the compression tests on the Beast’s barrel have come back different than MAKOs in years past. This would imply Easton has done something differently, but implying it now out performs a 2015 and 2016 version, which were straight out crazy hot, is too far fetched for us. The MAKO in the last several years has been the bat to beat in terms of on field performance. That will be no different for 2017.
Like previous years’ models, the 2017 Easton MAKO Beast is a two piece composite bat with a focus on a massive barrel and a light swing weight. However, in the BBCOR space, the 2017 barrel is larger than last year’s version. In the Big Barrel or Youth Barrel space, the barrel size will be the same.
In both BBCOR, Big Barrel and Youth Barrel, the bat composition is still the TCT composite Easton has been using for at least a couple years now. The connective piece (CXN) is still reasonably stiff and allows for good vibration absorption without any noticeable loss in power.
The overall rating uses seven different weighted metrics to determine our overall score. Half of total rating comes from the player and our exit speed tests (Player Rating: 25%, Performance: 25%).The other categories are Relevance (20%), Demand (10%), Durability (10%), Resell Score (5%), and Tech Specs (5%).
*: When a bat is denoted by a star (*) it is a preliminary rating. Expect it to be updated as we learn more about the bat and gather more data.
(PlaRa) Player Rating: We measure player rating from user reviews. Those users include our own hitters that we test at the lab as well as reviews we find online.
(ExVe) Performance: Performance measures the exit speeds and distances we capture in our hitting lab with HitTrax using these bats.
(Relv) Relevance: We measure the number of sizes and the MOI of the bat. Bats with a wider range of options get a better score.
(Dmnd) Demand: Demand is measured by consumer sentiment and the buzz around the bat.
(Drb) Durability: A bat’s durability is measured by user reviews as well as feedback from manufacturers.
(ReSl) Resell Score: Based on the price the bats go for used. Higher prices mean greater user demand which means, generally, a better bat. A resell value closer to its original price means a higher score.
(Tech) Tech Specs: We rate the bat on its technological advancements from previous years and compared to the industry at large. This is our chance to reward companies who are trying to innovate.
MOI or Mass Moment of Inertia is a measurement of bat swing weight. This quantifies how difficult it is to swing a bat. The industry often refers to this as things like End Load or Balanced but those words have been overused to the point of meaninglessness. We measure the actual swing weights of each bat we test using the industry-standard pendulum period, balance point, and scale weight. You can read more about that here.
The price is the original MSRP price of the bat.
The types of bats are single-piece alloy (SPA), two-piece composite (TPC), single-piece composite (SPC), hybrid (Hyb.), and wood (Wood). Hybrid bats are made of composite handles and alloy barrles.
The estimated date the bat began distribution.