[HN Gopher] Study investigates how mass distribution of baseball...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Study investigates how mass distribution of baseball bat affects
       performance
        
       https://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/ISEA2026-Torpedo-v7.pd...
        
       Author : Magi604
       Score  : 22 points
       Date   : 2026-04-03 02:49 UTC (5 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (news.wsu.edu)
 (TXT) w3m dump (news.wsu.edu)
        
       | restlessforge wrote:
       | So... The Torpedo Bat is basically the Placebo Bat?
        
         | bryanlarsen wrote:
         | 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 wrote:
           | they compared equal _swing_ weight bats. so actually in their
           | experiment the torpedo bat was heavier.
        
       | kaonwarb wrote:
       | 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 wrote:
         | This is just the most oxymoronic article. It's like it knew we
         | would all be like... wait.
        
         | devindotcom wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | Mathnerd314 wrote:
       | 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 wrote:
         | 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 wrote:
         | Modern 2026 click bait:
         | 
         | 1. Provide "distinct" proof 2. Title it as the antithesis
        
         | devindotcom wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | nsxwolf wrote:
       | Very ugly bat. Poor aesthetics for baseball.
        
       | jeffbee wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | orthecreedence wrote:
       | > "Wood is wood," said Smith
       | 
       | Ahh, finally. A definitive answer!
        
       | wnevets wrote:
       | I forgot all about the torpedo bat "craze", It was largely a dead
       | story by the all star break.
        
       | talkfold wrote:
       | Scientists spent money confirming that wood is wood.
        
       | lawrenceduk wrote:
       | Clicked on the story expecting underwater bat-like weapon system.
       | Was incredibly disappointed.
        
       | excalibur wrote:
       | > 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.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-04-08 23:01 UTC)