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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
17 comments
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.
> 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.
And it compares equal weight bats. If the torpedo bat allows you to use a lighter bat, that will increase your swing speed.
> “Wood is wood,” said Smith
Ahh, finally. A definitive answer!