Yeah, it's like just ignoring the actual conclusions. I mean, it's easier to hit and then it hits less hard, which is actually good because professional baseball players generally hit it out of the park when they get a good hit. So the conclusion is actually completely opposite what the title of the article is - it's not the same. It is a substantial improvement.
bombcar 11 days ago [-]
The moment I saw “slight difference in location of sweet spot” I knew the bat would have tremendous real-world impact even if the robots couldn’t hit any better.
sam1r 11 days ago [-]
Modern 2026 click bait:
1. Provide “distinct” proof
2. Title it as the antithesis
devindotcom 10 days ago [-]
i'm sorry but where are you seeing this completely opposite and substantial improvement?
>The team found nearly identical performance for the torpedo and standard bats except that the sweet spot for the torpedo bat was a half inch farther from the bat tip than the standard bat.
>“It was actually pretty phenomenal how close they were,” said Smith.
>For some players who like to hit the ball closer in, the torpedo bat might be a better option for them
some players with some batting characteristics may find this better? is that what you are referring to? What part of the article disputes this at all, let alone concludes the opposite? Is it the researcher's own quote? I really don't understand your objection here. It seems to be based on your own intuition about how players "generally" hit balls. But the researchers themselves have presented their own data and conclusions pretty clearly here.
excalibur 10 days ago [-]
> For some players who like to hit the ball closer in, the torpedo bat might be a better option for them, though, he added. And because the barrel is wider in a place where those batters do hit, they will be more likely to hit the ball more often — giving players a higher batting average.
If the only constraints are material and weight, it should be possible to create a design that performs even better for this purpose. But at some point it stops looking like a baseball bat.
wnevets 10 days ago [-]
I forgot all about the torpedo bat "craze", It was largely a dead story by the all star break.
jeffbee 10 days ago [-]
Imagine writing a whole article like this and only including one really unclear photo with a distracting background and not indicating which bat is which in the photo.
restlessforge 16 days ago [-]
So... The Torpedo Bat is basically the Placebo Bat?
bryanlarsen 11 days ago [-]
The end of the article notes several very real changes in behavior, including being more likely to get a hit, which is significant.
And it compares equal weight bats. If the torpedo bat allows you to use a lighter bat, that will increase your swing speed.
postflopclarity 11 days ago [-]
they compared equal _swing_ weight bats. so actually in their experiment the torpedo bat was heavier.
11 days ago [-]
orthecreedence 10 days ago [-]
> “Wood is wood,” said Smith
Ahh, finally. A definitive answer!
nsxwolf 10 days ago [-]
Very ugly bat. Poor aesthetics for baseball.
talkfold 10 days ago [-]
Scientists spent money confirming that wood is wood.
kaonwarb 11 days ago [-]
Disappointing article. As another commenter mentioned, the very last sentence of the article reveals a potentially positive impact on batting average, which is extremely relevant to how well a bat works! But this seems to be ignored by the conclusion of both the researchers and the article, which focuses on hitting power.
sam1r 11 days ago [-]
This is just the most oxymoronic article. It’s like it knew we would all be like… wait.
devindotcom 10 days ago [-]
the last sentence is part of a paragraph specifying it "might" be better for "some players who like to hit the ball closer in"
not really ignored when it's in the article. the researchers themselves are quoted saying the results are incredibly close.
lawrenceduk 10 days ago [-]
Clicked on the story expecting underwater bat-like weapon system. Was incredibly disappointed.
Rendered at 08:24:10 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
1. Provide “distinct” proof 2. Title it as the antithesis
>The team found nearly identical performance for the torpedo and standard bats except that the sweet spot for the torpedo bat was a half inch farther from the bat tip than the standard bat.
>“It was actually pretty phenomenal how close they were,” said Smith.
>For some players who like to hit the ball closer in, the torpedo bat might be a better option for them
some players with some batting characteristics may find this better? is that what you are referring to? What part of the article disputes this at all, let alone concludes the opposite? Is it the researcher's own quote? I really don't understand your objection here. It seems to be based on your own intuition about how players "generally" hit balls. But the researchers themselves have presented their own data and conclusions pretty clearly here.
If the only constraints are material and weight, it should be possible to create a design that performs even better for this purpose. But at some point it stops looking like a baseball bat.
And it compares equal weight bats. If the torpedo bat allows you to use a lighter bat, that will increase your swing speed.
Ahh, finally. A definitive answer!
not really ignored when it's in the article. the researchers themselves are quoted saying the results are incredibly close.