MLB says Yankees’ new “torpedo bats” are legal and likely coming(thelibertyline.com)
thelibertyline.com
MLB says Yankees’ new “torpedo bats” are legal and likely coming
https://thelibertyline.com/2025/03/30/yankees-new-torpedo-bat/
430 comments
I play golf. I write about golf. I genuinely love golf. Over the last 50 years, we have slowly broken the game of golf by allowing incremental technological advancements -- just like this -- that make it easier to do something that is hard, that is making it easier to hit the sweet spot.
I am sending a grave warning to baseball fans here from the future that you will arrive at by following this road.
Golf used to be a finesse game with moments of power. Now everyone is swinging out of their shoes on every shot, and the strategy of the game has reached Nash equilibrium where you basically want to hit the ball as hard as you can at every opportunity, despite any strategic element on the course.
Professional baseball is always what I point to when I talk about what we've lost. You don't need the most optimized equipment to enjoy the game, in fact, ultimately, you don't even want it. Just use simply, standardized equipment, accept the limitations of that equipment, and enjoy a simple game, where strategy can be used to overcome the limitations of equipment. The best thing that the MLB ever did was reject aluminum bats.
I am sending a grave warning to baseball fans here from the future that you will arrive at by following this road.
Golf used to be a finesse game with moments of power. Now everyone is swinging out of their shoes on every shot, and the strategy of the game has reached Nash equilibrium where you basically want to hit the ball as hard as you can at every opportunity, despite any strategic element on the course.
Professional baseball is always what I point to when I talk about what we've lost. You don't need the most optimized equipment to enjoy the game, in fact, ultimately, you don't even want it. Just use simply, standardized equipment, accept the limitations of that equipment, and enjoy a simple game, where strategy can be used to overcome the limitations of equipment. The best thing that the MLB ever did was reject aluminum bats.
There’s some consensus though that currently, pitching has evolved much faster than batting due to advances like Trackman and deeper understanding of the relationship between biomechanics, pitch tunneling, spinrate/flight path/movement, and so on. In conjunction with that has been a shift towards “TTO” (three true outcomes - HR/BB/K) on the offensive side, which is a statistically motivated perspective that batting for average is suboptimal. In short, you would rather have a lower BA and a higher home run rate even if it means a higher K rate, since home runs (and 2Bs) are so significantly more valuable than singles, and fly outs are also much more valuable than ground outs (or really, less bad) due to the opportunities for sac flies and the risk of double plays. TTO tho is also partly a response to the elevated pitching capabilities - velocity and spin.
This is all just to say that batters are falling behind and there’s an argument that it hurts the on-field product from an entertainment perspective since balls in play are what we ultimately watch for - if torpedo bats make it more likely that players can bat for higher averages by barreling up the ball more consistently, it will be good for the game.
Other alternative proposals include lowering the mound (famously done in the 60s), adjusting the ball (eg lower seams, which makes it harder for pitchers to generate spin and makes the same spin rates less effective), and so on.
One good (bad?) thing is that to some extent pitchers are starting to reach a biomechanical wall, evidenced by the greatly increased rates of Tommy John surgery, though that is partly also an effect of better surgical techniques and recovery times.
Point is - it’s complicated.
This is all just to say that batters are falling behind and there’s an argument that it hurts the on-field product from an entertainment perspective since balls in play are what we ultimately watch for - if torpedo bats make it more likely that players can bat for higher averages by barreling up the ball more consistently, it will be good for the game.
Other alternative proposals include lowering the mound (famously done in the 60s), adjusting the ball (eg lower seams, which makes it harder for pitchers to generate spin and makes the same spin rates less effective), and so on.
One good (bad?) thing is that to some extent pitchers are starting to reach a biomechanical wall, evidenced by the greatly increased rates of Tommy John surgery, though that is partly also an effect of better surgical techniques and recovery times.
Point is - it’s complicated.
I don't disagree with any of this, I'm just saying that we know where this goes. It's just an arms races if you let it become one. If the pitching is getting too good, make it harder to pitch.
>In short, you would rather have a lower BA and a higher home run rate even if it means a higher K rate, since home runs (and 2Bs) are so significantly more valuable than singles, and fly outs are also much more valuable than ground outs (or really, less bad) due to the opportunities for sac flies and the risk of double plays.
Again, I see this as the tail wagging the dog. It's easy to point to home runs as entertaining, but they a ultimately rather boring. For die hard fans, you want more hits that end up in play, with more strategy, and more opportunity for mistakes and drama. You're not going to get that from home run derbies.
Again, I know it's complicated, but ultimately, most sports organizations face an extremely complicated paradigm. It's fun to follow complicated sports where anything can happen, but it's hard to follow the same sports if you're not already into them. The way you solve this is to make the sports incredibly accessible so people visit games easily and cheaply as entertainment. The American sports system doesn't allow this because there is no relegation system, and so the fan bases are too large to allow the game to be accessible to most people. You end up making decisions that make television more watchable, and by making things "important" by "breaking records." This ultimately dilutes the game because it makes breaking records less relevant over time.
We've got to the point in golf where someone setting an all time PGA scoring record is basically a yawn-fest, because everyone knows they're not playing the same game.
>In short, you would rather have a lower BA and a higher home run rate even if it means a higher K rate, since home runs (and 2Bs) are so significantly more valuable than singles, and fly outs are also much more valuable than ground outs (or really, less bad) due to the opportunities for sac flies and the risk of double plays.
Again, I see this as the tail wagging the dog. It's easy to point to home runs as entertaining, but they a ultimately rather boring. For die hard fans, you want more hits that end up in play, with more strategy, and more opportunity for mistakes and drama. You're not going to get that from home run derbies.
Again, I know it's complicated, but ultimately, most sports organizations face an extremely complicated paradigm. It's fun to follow complicated sports where anything can happen, but it's hard to follow the same sports if you're not already into them. The way you solve this is to make the sports incredibly accessible so people visit games easily and cheaply as entertainment. The American sports system doesn't allow this because there is no relegation system, and so the fan bases are too large to allow the game to be accessible to most people. You end up making decisions that make television more watchable, and by making things "important" by "breaking records." This ultimately dilutes the game because it makes breaking records less relevant over time.
We've got to the point in golf where someone setting an all time PGA scoring record is basically a yawn-fest, because everyone knows they're not playing the same game.
>The American sports system doesn't allow this because there is no relegation system
A few years ago a friend of mine from the UK made the observation that American Football would benefit greatly from a relegation system... every season I have the same reaction. By about the 4th week of the season, the NFL bifurcates into legitimate contenders and everybody else. You end up with Thursday nights and late season games that nobody gives a shit about because it's gonna be a blowout. For that matter - the last 2-3 weeks of the season the playoffs are already set, so half the league has no reason to even play - and the quality of the product on the field matches this. Some kind of two-tier system would go a long way to fix this, and might also help with the larger problem of the bridge between the college and pro games. At the moment, the NFL is maybe the only league that doesn't really have a "minor league" or development league - its the colleges, and between NIL and the portal system, colleges aren't necessarily producing pro-ready players.
A few years ago a friend of mine from the UK made the observation that American Football would benefit greatly from a relegation system... every season I have the same reaction. By about the 4th week of the season, the NFL bifurcates into legitimate contenders and everybody else. You end up with Thursday nights and late season games that nobody gives a shit about because it's gonna be a blowout. For that matter - the last 2-3 weeks of the season the playoffs are already set, so half the league has no reason to even play - and the quality of the product on the field matches this. Some kind of two-tier system would go a long way to fix this, and might also help with the larger problem of the bridge between the college and pro games. At the moment, the NFL is maybe the only league that doesn't really have a "minor league" or development league - its the colleges, and between NIL and the portal system, colleges aren't necessarily producing pro-ready players.
They're never going to change this, it's the reason NFL franchises have such massively inflated valuations. Same w/ basketball + IPL franchises, very little downside risk to the earning power of the franchise.
> so half the league has no reason to even play
Guys are always playing for their jobs if nothing else.
There are only a few games where you can put out tape and careers are short in the NFL. So even if you're on a completely losing team there's plenty to play for.
Guys are always playing for their jobs if nothing else.
There are only a few games where you can put out tape and careers are short in the NFL. So even if you're on a completely losing team there's plenty to play for.
Weren’t the Eagles a .500 team through week 4 and then won it all last season? You are correct that some teams mail it in once they’ve got the playoff seed locked but its a small handful of games. The broncos were a .500 team through game 6 and were in a wild card game last season.
In those few games where they sit starters, the backups absolutely want to do their best to get starting jobs, the games aren’t uncontested.
In those few games where they sit starters, the backups absolutely want to do their best to get starting jobs, the games aren’t uncontested.
There’s 17 games… not 170.
Any given Sunday.
Any given Sunday.
Yes, and the league produced a better product when it was 14 and 16 games a season - week 17 is painful to watch.
Basically none of this is true. The wild card system has resulted in an NFL where well over half the league has playoff hopes very deep into the season. It's completely false that "by about the 4th week of the season", the league has bifurcated. Simply not even close to being true.
The NFL has also been extremely successful in leveling the playing field via salary cap and draft, such that franchises beset by woe can become title contenders within a single year. The most recent of many, many examples is the Washington Commanders. Detroit came before that.
And no, the playoffs are not "already set" before the last 3 weeks. This is completely inaccurate, as anyone who watches the NFL and reads about the near-infinite playoff scenarios at the close of every season already knows.
And lastly, only a Brit with no understanding of the economics of American football would even propose that relegation could work in this sport. It can't. The sport costs far too much for that and any such "relegated" teams would instantly collapse financially. NFL rosters contain 53 players with a practice squad of 17 and gigantic support staffs which absolutely could not survive without the full levels of NFL TV contract funding, stadium revenues, and other financial flows that full NFL membership provides.
And lastly, anyone who is paying any attention to the NFL draft over time knows that there is no issue with colleges producing pro-ready players.
The NFL has also been extremely successful in leveling the playing field via salary cap and draft, such that franchises beset by woe can become title contenders within a single year. The most recent of many, many examples is the Washington Commanders. Detroit came before that.
And no, the playoffs are not "already set" before the last 3 weeks. This is completely inaccurate, as anyone who watches the NFL and reads about the near-infinite playoff scenarios at the close of every season already knows.
And lastly, only a Brit with no understanding of the economics of American football would even propose that relegation could work in this sport. It can't. The sport costs far too much for that and any such "relegated" teams would instantly collapse financially. NFL rosters contain 53 players with a practice squad of 17 and gigantic support staffs which absolutely could not survive without the full levels of NFL TV contract funding, stadium revenues, and other financial flows that full NFL membership provides.
And lastly, anyone who is paying any attention to the NFL draft over time knows that there is no issue with colleges producing pro-ready players.
> If the pitching is getting too good, make it harder to pitch.
For ball games it sounds mostly fair.
There is a weird situation in cycling where any attempt at improvement (even in riding postures) getting banned by the UCI has become a meme and each year's announcement generates a fest of joke videos.
That would be the other end of the spectrum we're trying to avoid.
For ball games it sounds mostly fair.
There is a weird situation in cycling where any attempt at improvement (even in riding postures) getting banned by the UCI has become a meme and each year's announcement generates a fest of joke videos.
That would be the other end of the spectrum we're trying to avoid.
Sort of similar in Formula 1. Team finds a loophole in rules, exploits it for performance gain, FIA bans it. Rinse and repeat.
There’s minor leagues all over the USA. It’s pretty cheap to go to a baseball game if it’s not MLB. And even MLB if your not picky on where you sit and the game time
I used to attend round rock express games a lot. The problem is because they are a minor league team, it doesn’t matter if they are good or bad. There is no one to root for because their best players are all just sent up to the majors.
It lacks generational fandom, because there is no place for hope in farm teams.
It lacks generational fandom, because there is no place for hope in farm teams.
> It lacks generational fandom, because there is no place for hope in farm teams.
Depends if you are a fan of the Major league team, imo. I enjoyed the Round Rock Express when they were a part of the Houston Astros. I still remember being really excited to see Hunter Pence in Round Rock on his way to the Majors. Lost interest in RR once it became the Texas Rangers farm team thou
Depends if you are a fan of the Major league team, imo. I enjoyed the Round Rock Express when they were a part of the Houston Astros. I still remember being really excited to see Hunter Pence in Round Rock on his way to the Majors. Lost interest in RR once it became the Texas Rangers farm team thou
In minor leagues you root for the players. At least when I was a kid I did. I knew them, had my favorites and they were accessible. I got lots of autographs of future stars and it was incredibly exciting to see them make it to the majors. As a kid anyway, which is who I feel baseball is for, it's weird to me for adults to care about baseball.
> It's easy to point to home runs as entertaining, but they a ultimately rather boring. For die hard fans, you want more hits that end up in play, with more strategy, and more opportunity for mistakes and drama. You're not going to get that from home run derbies.
There's a counter-example in Cricket.
The game used to be a 5-day long battle with daily skirmishes and tactical changes required according to the ebbs and flows of the weather, the players, the score each day. Sometimes you could win just by exhausting the other team, sometimes you could gain advantage by changing your play style transiently to force the other team to react. The players all wore white uniforms, national pride was wrapped up the success of the country's team and being a Good Sport was the highest ideal.
Then, the powers that be created a shorter variant, the One-Day Match. The players started wearing brightly coloured uniforms, the crowds grew louder and entire categories of strategy were rendered useless as the game finished in 20% of the time. Viewership increased, cricket became "exciting" and the players sometimes achieved rockstar status usually reserved for sports that more easily captured the Australian sporting imagination like swimming and athletics.
The trend was clear: the entertainment value of short-form cricket games were spectacular. In came a myriad of new sponsorship categories for things like domestic household goods ("It's Australia's Favourite Air"), energy drinks and Sports Utility Vehicles that would appeal to the demographic of viewers who only had a "day's length investment" in the game. They started playing popular music in between game pauses and the Gentlemanliness of the game's spirit gave way to Victory as the highest Ideal.
Then, Cricket had it's "YouTube Shorts" moment -- an even more abridged version of the game that only lasted 20 overs per side was born. This hyper-speed version of cricket favoured fast results, flying balls and fan participation like never before. There was now fireworks and rock music and after-parties and more. It was All Killer, No Filler. The goal was to Smash It Outta The Park as much as possible, and every time they did it, a quick ad-break got to play on TV while the fans in the crowd got to sing Seven Nation Army while cheering on whoever caught the ball this time. The domestic competition is even called the "Big Bash League".
Australian Cricket's archetype went from Twelve Magnificent Fellows in Baggy Green Hats to what feels like a monster truck rally with branded personalised beers, bucket hats, and brand-safe team rivalries. Sometimes they even drive a Ute truck around the stadium at half-time.
What I'm trying to say is that popular demand or the voices of those who claim to interpret it say that Spectacle Isn't Boring. They love the exciting moments, and maybe are only willing to tolerate the slow and strategic sides of the game to get to the next Home Run. This trend towards shallow spectacle seems to be happening to all forms of entertainment and I suspect that baseball is not immune.
There's a counter-example in Cricket.
The game used to be a 5-day long battle with daily skirmishes and tactical changes required according to the ebbs and flows of the weather, the players, the score each day. Sometimes you could win just by exhausting the other team, sometimes you could gain advantage by changing your play style transiently to force the other team to react. The players all wore white uniforms, national pride was wrapped up the success of the country's team and being a Good Sport was the highest ideal.
Then, the powers that be created a shorter variant, the One-Day Match. The players started wearing brightly coloured uniforms, the crowds grew louder and entire categories of strategy were rendered useless as the game finished in 20% of the time. Viewership increased, cricket became "exciting" and the players sometimes achieved rockstar status usually reserved for sports that more easily captured the Australian sporting imagination like swimming and athletics.
The trend was clear: the entertainment value of short-form cricket games were spectacular. In came a myriad of new sponsorship categories for things like domestic household goods ("It's Australia's Favourite Air"), energy drinks and Sports Utility Vehicles that would appeal to the demographic of viewers who only had a "day's length investment" in the game. They started playing popular music in between game pauses and the Gentlemanliness of the game's spirit gave way to Victory as the highest Ideal.
Then, Cricket had it's "YouTube Shorts" moment -- an even more abridged version of the game that only lasted 20 overs per side was born. This hyper-speed version of cricket favoured fast results, flying balls and fan participation like never before. There was now fireworks and rock music and after-parties and more. It was All Killer, No Filler. The goal was to Smash It Outta The Park as much as possible, and every time they did it, a quick ad-break got to play on TV while the fans in the crowd got to sing Seven Nation Army while cheering on whoever caught the ball this time. The domestic competition is even called the "Big Bash League".
Australian Cricket's archetype went from Twelve Magnificent Fellows in Baggy Green Hats to what feels like a monster truck rally with branded personalised beers, bucket hats, and brand-safe team rivalries. Sometimes they even drive a Ute truck around the stadium at half-time.
What I'm trying to say is that popular demand or the voices of those who claim to interpret it say that Spectacle Isn't Boring. They love the exciting moments, and maybe are only willing to tolerate the slow and strategic sides of the game to get to the next Home Run. This trend towards shallow spectacle seems to be happening to all forms of entertainment and I suspect that baseball is not immune.
I have stopped following professional sports for at least a couple of decades, despite being a sportsman of the real variety--of practice and not attendance as a spectator.
A friend sometimes invites me to see G League basketball games—he has season tickets—and sometimes I go, more for the company than anything else.
I watch a spectacle, dreadful, terrible. Every time out is a good reason to blast loud, annoying music and show a group of dancing children on the jumbotron, for a cheerleading exhibition of people who are over 60 or under 13, for a competition in which the girl, or the middle-aged man in attendance, tries to score a bucket with bio-mechanically unsound movements that herald an expensive visit to the orthopedist, for a toss from the in-house entertainers either of T-shirts or socks that gets retirees, who are struggling to get out of their chairs, all excited.
Cops on the court checking that the retirees themselves are not throwing a fit, tickets to be scanned, metal detectors ringing for a key in the pocket, a $15 draft beer. When I leave, I'm exhausted, mortified, wondering who made me do it.
Give me back the sport of 50 years ago, or never invite me again.
I watch a spectacle, dreadful, terrible. Every time out is a good reason to blast loud, annoying music and show a group of dancing children on the jumbotron, for a cheerleading exhibition of people who are over 60 or under 13, for a competition in which the girl, or the middle-aged man in attendance, tries to score a bucket with bio-mechanically unsound movements that herald an expensive visit to the orthopedist, for a toss from the in-house entertainers either of T-shirts or socks that gets retirees, who are struggling to get out of their chairs, all excited.
Cops on the court checking that the retirees themselves are not throwing a fit, tickets to be scanned, metal detectors ringing for a key in the pocket, a $15 draft beer. When I leave, I'm exhausted, mortified, wondering who made me do it.
Give me back the sport of 50 years ago, or never invite me again.
Isn't baseball already a shallower form of cricket anyway?
Home runs are not "balls in play," though. So are we to go to a binary game, which amounts to whiffs or homers?
Also I don't think your assertion that batters have "fallen behind" pitchers holds up. Shohei Ohtani just became the first player to have 50 homers and 50 stolen bases.
Also I don't think your assertion that batters have "fallen behind" pitchers holds up. Shohei Ohtani just became the first player to have 50 homers and 50 stolen bases.
I know nothing of baseball.
If pitching evolves faster than hitting, does that mean the response time of the hitter becomes shkrter? Can't you move the pitcher further away to give the hitter more time to respond?
If pitching evolves faster than hitting, does that mean the response time of the hitter becomes shkrter? Can't you move the pitcher further away to give the hitter more time to respond?
Not from the US and therefore I know nothing about it either. I thought a torpedo bat would be something like this:
https://static.odealo.com/uploads/auction_images//6441500406...
But in comparison these new bats look exactly like the old ones...
https://static.odealo.com/uploads/auction_images//6441500406...
But in comparison these new bats look exactly like the old ones...
MLB could move the mound back or lower it again like was done in 1969 after the 'Year of the Pitcher', but it's not that simple.
The other crisis baseball faces is pitcher arm health. The mere act of throwing a ball 90-105 mph is damaging to the arm, and it only gets worse the harder you throw. Every pitcher is chasing velocity and spin rate since the resulting success and money is undeniable. Pitchers frequently need major surgery and extended year+ time recovering as a result.
If the mound is moved back or lowered pitchers will respond by doubling down on chasing velocity just to stay level, leading to more injuries and UCL replacement surgeries.
The same incentives apply to other options to give batters an edge, like juicing the ball or shrinking the strike zone. Pitchers will respond with velocity and blow up their arms.
The other crisis baseball faces is pitcher arm health. The mere act of throwing a ball 90-105 mph is damaging to the arm, and it only gets worse the harder you throw. Every pitcher is chasing velocity and spin rate since the resulting success and money is undeniable. Pitchers frequently need major surgery and extended year+ time recovering as a result.
If the mound is moved back or lowered pitchers will respond by doubling down on chasing velocity just to stay level, leading to more injuries and UCL replacement surgeries.
The same incentives apply to other options to give batters an edge, like juicing the ball or shrinking the strike zone. Pitchers will respond with velocity and blow up their arms.
> Pitchers will respond with velocity and blow up their arms
They seem, from the outside, like they'll do this no matter what. Move the mound back, allow torpedo bats or don't, do you think pitchers will intentionally pass up the money and success?
They seem, from the outside, like they'll do this no matter what. Move the mound back, allow torpedo bats or don't, do you think pitchers will intentionally pass up the money and success?
People have had similar sentiments in tennis about how racket and ball technology has changed the game over the years. Moving away from wooden rackets led to a massive increase in power and a larger sweet spot, which transformed the game from finesse to powerful serve-and-volley play. John McEnroe began with wooden racquets, while Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi adjusted to carbon fiber frames. Then poly strings took things even further, players generated extreme topspin to deliver aggressive swings with much more consistency, pushing the game back towards the high-powered baseline style.
For me, Roger Federer's style represents tennis at its most beautiful. His all-court game feels effortless and graceful, almost like a dance. But from a court-level view, it's more of a high-speed chess match built on calculated aggression, constantly pressuring opponents and waiting for the slightest opening to strike a point-winning shot. That level of sophistication and precision wouldn’t be possible without modern racket technology.
I still feel emotionally tied to classic matches from my childhood, especially Federer versus Nadal. But there's no objective reason, because tennis keeps getting better. People worried finesse was disappearing, but players like Alcaraz have brought back drop shots and clever cat-and-mouse tactics against deep-baseline defenders like Zverev and Medvedev. It’s a technique that was once considered too risky to rely on consistently.
In golf, tennis, baseball, basketball, running, & any other sport will keep evolving as technology & athleticism improves. Clinging to older styles feels more like holding onto the past than genuinely appreciating progress. If you can’t enjoy Curry hitting daggers in the Olympic finals or Kiplimo breaking 57 minutes in a half marathon, maybe the problem isn't with the sport itself. Maybe it’s the comfort of past memories holding you back from appreciating what’s happening now.
For me, Roger Federer's style represents tennis at its most beautiful. His all-court game feels effortless and graceful, almost like a dance. But from a court-level view, it's more of a high-speed chess match built on calculated aggression, constantly pressuring opponents and waiting for the slightest opening to strike a point-winning shot. That level of sophistication and precision wouldn’t be possible without modern racket technology.
I still feel emotionally tied to classic matches from my childhood, especially Federer versus Nadal. But there's no objective reason, because tennis keeps getting better. People worried finesse was disappearing, but players like Alcaraz have brought back drop shots and clever cat-and-mouse tactics against deep-baseline defenders like Zverev and Medvedev. It’s a technique that was once considered too risky to rely on consistently.
In golf, tennis, baseball, basketball, running, & any other sport will keep evolving as technology & athleticism improves. Clinging to older styles feels more like holding onto the past than genuinely appreciating progress. If you can’t enjoy Curry hitting daggers in the Olympic finals or Kiplimo breaking 57 minutes in a half marathon, maybe the problem isn't with the sport itself. Maybe it’s the comfort of past memories holding you back from appreciating what’s happening now.
This argument about progress falls apart as soon as you consider previous eras in sport that were found wanting. Was the bruising play of the 2004 NBA superior to previous kinds of basketball? Most people would disagree. Were the stickhandling of Martin Brodeur and the Left Wing Lock the culmination of decades of hockey "progress?" Not even a Devils or Red Wings fan would say that. Should everyone have celebrated when it was discovered in the 1990 World Cup that the most efficient strategy was to deliver the ball into the hands of the goalkeeper over and over? No, because it was incredibly boring.
I think everything you noted as a downside is why, in part, things like Pickleball and Disc Golf took off in the last 5 years.
They’re similar to things we know, but different enough that they haven’t been optimized out of reach by normals, or at least perceived as such, and both have a relatively cheap barrier of entry to get started.
I think we may find 20 years from now the dominate sports have changed up a bit. I have heard that the NFL and MLB for instance are worried about the incoming decline of their sports because they aren’t nearly as popular with people under 35 compared to basketball and other up snd coming sports
They’re similar to things we know, but different enough that they haven’t been optimized out of reach by normals, or at least perceived as such, and both have a relatively cheap barrier of entry to get started.
I think we may find 20 years from now the dominate sports have changed up a bit. I have heard that the NFL and MLB for instance are worried about the incoming decline of their sports because they aren’t nearly as popular with people under 35 compared to basketball and other up snd coming sports
Are there similar optimizations available for basketball? Shoes can only do so much.
For professional basketball, the statistical advantage of 3-point has completely warped the game. There are a lot of articles online about it
My understanding is that the whole history of basketball is explained by the fact that they won't make the court bigger and the nets higher to account for the fact that the players are seven feet tall now.
Yeah there’s a pretty clear distinction between the NBA (and even college somewhat) from before Steph Curry and after. It’s been as revolutionary as the addition of the line in the first place and the shot clock.
Not really, due to how the game is designed. I don’t know all the ins and outs of the sport but the way is played leaves little room comparatively for artificial optimization
I think what both have in common is this: People who don't otherwise care about the sport will watch highlights of people smashing balls really far with sticks. And "people...will watch" generates revenue.
People who are passionate about either sport will find them less and less interesting, but 1) most of you will keep watching anyway, and 2) the sports can afford to lose you for the parts you won't watch if it increases the total amount of "seconds people will watch" enough by drawing in enough new eyeballs.
People who are passionate about either sport will find them less and less interesting, but 1) most of you will keep watching anyway, and 2) the sports can afford to lose you for the parts you won't watch if it increases the total amount of "seconds people will watch" enough by drawing in enough new eyeballs.
Why not invent say "Field Golf" or "Lolz Golf" or whatever you fancy calling it? Set the rules and equipment to around your ideal time. Get some mates together to give it a go and refine it.
I think the toughest part will be equipment - golf bats cost a fair bit to make but perhaps a price limit might help fix that. You could define club classes akin to how sailing has standard class boats. You could even require that participants make their own for an added twist. I'd keep the current standard balls for now.
Why stop at the bats and balls? What about the format? You could do three holes with a very short shot clock and go straight to the 19th for a bladder wrecking session involving a golf themed drinking game. Instead of running in a Triathlon, do nine holes after the swim and before cycling to the finish. You could replace the cycle phase with knocking a polo ball from a pony along the course to the finish. The swim could be ... yes ... underwater croquet!
Could be a lot of fun even if it never takes off - and that is what any past time ought to be.
I think the toughest part will be equipment - golf bats cost a fair bit to make but perhaps a price limit might help fix that. You could define club classes akin to how sailing has standard class boats. You could even require that participants make their own for an added twist. I'd keep the current standard balls for now.
Why stop at the bats and balls? What about the format? You could do three holes with a very short shot clock and go straight to the 19th for a bladder wrecking session involving a golf themed drinking game. Instead of running in a Triathlon, do nine holes after the swim and before cycling to the finish. You could replace the cycle phase with knocking a polo ball from a pony along the course to the finish. The swim could be ... yes ... underwater croquet!
Could be a lot of fun even if it never takes off - and that is what any past time ought to be.
There are plenty of associations who do this: https://worldhickoryopen.com/
I still play with my grandfather's persimmon clubs about 25% of the time.
It's just a coordination problem... but once the dominant professional association the game changes forever, because the vast majority of people just want to emulate the pros, because they grew up dreaming of becoming pro.
Golf is finally trying to do something about this with rolling back the golf ball so that it will have diminishing returns with more power, but the real damage was done in the early 80s by allowing hollow clubs to make the sweet spot bigger, which lead to it becoming absolutely huge in the 90s.
Again, once you go down this road, you'll wake up in 20 years wondering what happened.
I still play with my grandfather's persimmon clubs about 25% of the time.
It's just a coordination problem... but once the dominant professional association the game changes forever, because the vast majority of people just want to emulate the pros, because they grew up dreaming of becoming pro.
Golf is finally trying to do something about this with rolling back the golf ball so that it will have diminishing returns with more power, but the real damage was done in the early 80s by allowing hollow clubs to make the sweet spot bigger, which lead to it becoming absolutely huge in the 90s.
Again, once you go down this road, you'll wake up in 20 years wondering what happened.
I am not a golfist at all and unfortunately I feel that I must instinctively hate the game - that is really my problem and not golf's. Golf is a decent sport and not deserving of my opprobrium.
So why do I feel the need to dislike golf? I'm a white skinned, middle aged male and my job title is Managing Director. Obviously I should be a passionate small white ball smacker. No I'm not.
I love the idea of golf but hate the ... environment. That is still on me. Our wedding ding dong was held in a hotel that majored in golf (Woodbury/Devon/UK - Nigel Mansell's place), 19 years ago.
I think that golf needs to go back say 300 years. A bloke sporting a kilt would slyly whip out a hidden club on a Sunday (shock, horror) and whack a ball/stone away. Just for the absolute hell of it.
Golf needs to find its joy again. If it does, then I'll join in.
So why do I feel the need to dislike golf? I'm a white skinned, middle aged male and my job title is Managing Director. Obviously I should be a passionate small white ball smacker. No I'm not.
I love the idea of golf but hate the ... environment. That is still on me. Our wedding ding dong was held in a hotel that majored in golf (Woodbury/Devon/UK - Nigel Mansell's place), 19 years ago.
I think that golf needs to go back say 300 years. A bloke sporting a kilt would slyly whip out a hidden club on a Sunday (shock, horror) and whack a ball/stone away. Just for the absolute hell of it.
Golf needs to find its joy again. If it does, then I'll join in.
I assure you we are kindred spirits. I started writing about golf as someone who was just a bit embarrassed to like golf because nobody was writing about golf from a skeptical position.
My blogs name is “Wigs on the Green” because that’s and archaic term for a fistfight, and I wasn’t to write like I was willing to burn every bridge if I thought it was good for golf, environmentalism, and the culture.
I learned on muni’s and went to graduate school in Scotland where I learned the snooty aspects of golf are almost exclusively a North American phenomena.
My blogs name is “Wigs on the Green” because that’s and archaic term for a fistfight, and I wasn’t to write like I was willing to burn every bridge if I thought it was good for golf, environmentalism, and the culture.
I learned on muni’s and went to graduate school in Scotland where I learned the snooty aspects of golf are almost exclusively a North American phenomena.
I'm starting to be tempted. Golf should be a natural fit for me and I am well aware I'm the curmudgeon.
"Wigs on the Green" - love the name ... OK it looks like Georgian/Regency so roughly 16-17C when wigs were popular and they would fly off during a proper scrap.
"Wigs on the Green" - love the name ... OK it looks like Georgian/Regency so roughly 16-17C when wigs were popular and they would fly off during a proper scrap.
There's a lot of variance in golf courses and golf cultures and players. At worst it's really bad, at best it's really good.
Maybe there could be a coordination method to only play with blades and persimmons. Then you could mark it in when reporting your score for handicap calculation. That's the make-it-or-break-it decision. If there's a way to get recognition or compensation for playing with worse equipment, then people might do it.
Shorter courses could also be more interesting this way. Then you would have more places to play closer by, eliminating travel etc.
There's some precedent already. Drivers have limitations and most manufacturers are under them (ie just at the limit for things like moment of inertia) but drivers that are outside regulations are available to buy online. Also horizontal distance metering is allowed in competition, but not vertical distance. Most rangefinders have a visible external switch to disable vertical distance. One could expand from those two places where we by regulation already use sub-optimal equipment.
Maybe there could be a coordination method to only play with blades and persimmons. Then you could mark it in when reporting your score for handicap calculation. That's the make-it-or-break-it decision. If there's a way to get recognition or compensation for playing with worse equipment, then people might do it.
Shorter courses could also be more interesting this way. Then you would have more places to play closer by, eliminating travel etc.
There's some precedent already. Drivers have limitations and most manufacturers are under them (ie just at the limit for things like moment of inertia) but drivers that are outside regulations are available to buy online. Also horizontal distance metering is allowed in competition, but not vertical distance. Most rangefinders have a visible external switch to disable vertical distance. One could expand from those two places where we by regulation already use sub-optimal equipment.
If you go to a public course with some friends, drink like a fish, and just have fun. Golf doesn't have any of that environment. Now I take it you are in the UK from what you say, so maybe its different. But I can go to a public course for $10, spend $20 on a cart rental, and spend the same on booze. Definitely not high class.
> but once the dominant professional association the game changes forever, because the vast majority of people just want to emulate the pros, because they grew up dreaming of becoming pro
I don't want to squash anyone's dreams but I feel like "emulating the pros" undermines the "spirit of the game" a lot. Most sports are literally "bet I can" style games that have then been refined and refined. They don't intrinsically matter to life continuing.
When you've experienced "sledging" in a low skill amateur series and the defence is "the pro's do it" then the fun of the game is gone...
I don't want to squash anyone's dreams but I feel like "emulating the pros" undermines the "spirit of the game" a lot. Most sports are literally "bet I can" style games that have then been refined and refined. They don't intrinsically matter to life continuing.
When you've experienced "sledging" in a low skill amateur series and the defence is "the pro's do it" then the fun of the game is gone...
amen. i hit golf balls with old hand me downs from my great uncle. the woods - the heads are wooden! they feel great to connect and they can crush distance. but the feel is so full and warm. i guess like warm vinyl records.
even better- i get to suck on so many shots. but sometimes - glory and feels.
another thing i like to celebrate when doing new sports ks starting with the crappiest gear available. it works and i learn. eventually when i upgrade, i can appreciate the new features and tech. or it’s bogus and doesn’t matter.
probably inappropriate but i find this phrase encouraging - it’s not the arrow, it’s the indian.
even better- i get to suck on so many shots. but sometimes - glory and feels.
another thing i like to celebrate when doing new sports ks starting with the crappiest gear available. it works and i learn. eventually when i upgrade, i can appreciate the new features and tech. or it’s bogus and doesn’t matter.
probably inappropriate but i find this phrase encouraging - it’s not the arrow, it’s the indian.
There was another article on these baseball bats where the opposing manager—the one whose team gave up the home runs—said, "It ain't the wand; it's the magician."
Speaking as a curling fan: the game has been greatly enhanced by the analogous technological improvements. Shots that used to be fever dreams are now routine at top levels of play, and the sport is better off for it. The change is even more dramatic worldwide than in Canada; teams from countries like Japan and Korea (perhaps the most impressive in this regard) have had to keep up with these advances while also generally becoming competitive on the world stage - in a sport where previously (say, a few decades ago) Canada, Scotland (the birthplace of the game) and maybe a couple of European countries were the only ones worth paying attention to.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. I think the top level of curling has reached a point that's boring to watch as too many shots are perfect. It leads to boring games of waiting for a missed shot. It's far more entertaining to watch the chaos of a mixed doubles match. That said I wish I could see more than just the Olympics.
This simply impacts the viewers of the sport, right?
When you play, you can play with whatever equipment you want, with a like minded group of players. Keep the game as “pure” as you want or use “The Sure Thing” clubs from top golf. The changes only matter on TV and then specifically if you compare that product to years or decades back. MLB is an incredibly poor example of maintaining purity. the most sacred records in the game were totally shattered, repeatedly, with modern technology and pharmaceuticals all in order to increase TV viewership and no penalties at all. To pretend there is some preservation of purity they are keeping these guys out of the Hall of Fame for a while, but the teams didn’t have fines or lose wins or draft picks or even have any of these guys suspended when everyone knew they were cheating.
It’s this intersection between taking part and entertainment where this odd gatekeeping happens. I hated hydraulic disc brakes and EPS on race bikes, until I tried it, the stuff is great but for myself I still ride bikes without electronics and rim brakes sometimes. I pinch the barbs on my hooks when I fly fish, I know others don’t and probably catch fish that I don’t, but for me I pinch the barbs. Oddly, I find it acceptable to use completely modern lines and rods and can throw a fly way better than any angler could in years ago. I’ve been able to find more satisfaction competing against myself with my own criteria than worrying about the purity on tv.
When you play, you can play with whatever equipment you want, with a like minded group of players. Keep the game as “pure” as you want or use “The Sure Thing” clubs from top golf. The changes only matter on TV and then specifically if you compare that product to years or decades back. MLB is an incredibly poor example of maintaining purity. the most sacred records in the game were totally shattered, repeatedly, with modern technology and pharmaceuticals all in order to increase TV viewership and no penalties at all. To pretend there is some preservation of purity they are keeping these guys out of the Hall of Fame for a while, but the teams didn’t have fines or lose wins or draft picks or even have any of these guys suspended when everyone knew they were cheating.
It’s this intersection between taking part and entertainment where this odd gatekeeping happens. I hated hydraulic disc brakes and EPS on race bikes, until I tried it, the stuff is great but for myself I still ride bikes without electronics and rim brakes sometimes. I pinch the barbs on my hooks when I fly fish, I know others don’t and probably catch fish that I don’t, but for me I pinch the barbs. Oddly, I find it acceptable to use completely modern lines and rods and can throw a fly way better than any angler could in years ago. I’ve been able to find more satisfaction competing against myself with my own criteria than worrying about the purity on tv.
No, for golf at least, it completely changes the way the game is played for even amateurs.
Yeah, but you still can play with the harder to use clubs or older balls or whatever. Some amateur coming to the course and driving 300yds too easily doesn't have to change the way you play.
I guess if you want to compete with them then there is that.
I guess if you want to compete with them then there is that.
>that make it easier to do something that is hard, that is making it easier to hit the sweet spot.
I agree completely with your synopsis, but I'm still a bit torn on whether it is a bad thing... I first golfed using my parent's 1970s era wood headed, aluminum shaft clubs that were extremely limited - it really was entirely about the golfer, not the equipment. Years later when I picked the game back up a bit - it's clear the equipment is doing a lot of work to make the user better. That said, at least at the amateur level - most of us still aren't great golfers, and given that many golfers are older and have physical limitations, it is a bad thing if better equipment improves their game and potentially gives them a few more years of enjoyment over the old stuff?
I have a parallel view on skis - man those old straight long skis were hard on knees and so many skiers were lucky to still be charging after 40. Lotta knee surgeons made good money in the 80s! Then along came parabolic skis and made us all better and safer skiers - almost anyone can shred in today's skis because they are frankly easy to ride. In that case - the technology was a positive innovation.
Your last paragraph nails it - the magic of baseball is its simplicity. Baseball games should take a long time and be an act of leisure. The idea of putting a baserunner on third to speed up a game is an abomination in the same way the addition of something other than a wood bat would detract from the skill of the player swinging it. So I'm with you - this could be some kind of equipment arms race that won't end well.
I agree completely with your synopsis, but I'm still a bit torn on whether it is a bad thing... I first golfed using my parent's 1970s era wood headed, aluminum shaft clubs that were extremely limited - it really was entirely about the golfer, not the equipment. Years later when I picked the game back up a bit - it's clear the equipment is doing a lot of work to make the user better. That said, at least at the amateur level - most of us still aren't great golfers, and given that many golfers are older and have physical limitations, it is a bad thing if better equipment improves their game and potentially gives them a few more years of enjoyment over the old stuff?
I have a parallel view on skis - man those old straight long skis were hard on knees and so many skiers were lucky to still be charging after 40. Lotta knee surgeons made good money in the 80s! Then along came parabolic skis and made us all better and safer skiers - almost anyone can shred in today's skis because they are frankly easy to ride. In that case - the technology was a positive innovation.
Your last paragraph nails it - the magic of baseball is its simplicity. Baseball games should take a long time and be an act of leisure. The idea of putting a baserunner on third to speed up a game is an abomination in the same way the addition of something other than a wood bat would detract from the skill of the player swinging it. So I'm with you - this could be some kind of equipment arms race that won't end well.
I agree about the skis. I think one important difference from the golf clubs is that they've enabled the really talented people to take things to a level previously unimaginable. Big mountain skiing is pretty bananas these days.
>they've enabled the really talented people to take things to a level previously unimaginable
And I guess that's where I wonder if golf might be a sport where equipment should be restricted at the professional level, the same way that metal bats are not allowed in MLB. Here's another weird way to look at it - you can ingest whatever you want and go play on the company softball team, but an Olympic athlete takes an aspirin and they might get a lifetime ban. It doesn't seem unreasonable to deliberately restrict professional athletics in ways that might constrain it and yet allow us to gauge the athletes in their purest form. Some in the world have advocated for the idea that we should remove all constraints - take all the drugs, use all the physics and science to enhance performance, and let's really see what we can do. It's a fun idea, but like one of the parent posters alluded - we might not like where that all ends up.
And I guess that's where I wonder if golf might be a sport where equipment should be restricted at the professional level, the same way that metal bats are not allowed in MLB. Here's another weird way to look at it - you can ingest whatever you want and go play on the company softball team, but an Olympic athlete takes an aspirin and they might get a lifetime ban. It doesn't seem unreasonable to deliberately restrict professional athletics in ways that might constrain it and yet allow us to gauge the athletes in their purest form. Some in the world have advocated for the idea that we should remove all constraints - take all the drugs, use all the physics and science to enhance performance, and let's really see what we can do. It's a fun idea, but like one of the parent posters alluded - we might not like where that all ends up.
[deleted]
Everything you described about golf has already happened in MLB.
Babe Ruth’s wood bat was 44 oz.
Today’s wood bat in MLB are ~33 oz.
The bat Babe Ruth used was so heavy he literally had to swing the bat different than how players can swing the bat today.
There’s a short video on this here: https://youtu.be/P_uiHUJg7zs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_bat
—-
Fishing has even undergone this technical change.
FFS (Front Facing Sonar) has completely changed the sport of fishing tournaments, since now you can literally identify where to cast (direction and depth) to catch a fish … and you can even target the fish by their size.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Dw-l_Smuqj8?si=QVvuAoNlfAb_-9F2
Babe Ruth’s wood bat was 44 oz.
Today’s wood bat in MLB are ~33 oz.
The bat Babe Ruth used was so heavy he literally had to swing the bat different than how players can swing the bat today.
There’s a short video on this here: https://youtu.be/P_uiHUJg7zs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_bat
—-
Fishing has even undergone this technical change.
FFS (Front Facing Sonar) has completely changed the sport of fishing tournaments, since now you can literally identify where to cast (direction and depth) to catch a fish … and you can even target the fish by their size.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Dw-l_Smuqj8?si=QVvuAoNlfAb_-9F2
Quick tip in case you don't have a good sense of what an ounce feels like: It's exactly 5 quarters (the coin).
So the difference between Babe's bat and today's is about the weight of 55 quarters (a roll and a half). Years of doing laundry at laundromats have given me a keen sense of how much handfuls of quarters weigh, so I find this actually pretty handy.
Just in case:
* A nickel is exactly 5 grams.
* A penny (1982+) is 2.5 grams.
* A dime is 0.08 ounces.
* A quarter is 0.2 ounces.
* 5 rolls of nickels = 1 kilogram
* 2 rolls of quarters = 1 pound.
Why did the U.S. Mint switch between even metric and even imperial units? Probably has to do with the changing metals in those coins. That said, the new small dollar coin is 8.1g / 0.286oz which makes no sense at all. It is, however, exactly 2mm thick.
So the difference between Babe's bat and today's is about the weight of 55 quarters (a roll and a half). Years of doing laundry at laundromats have given me a keen sense of how much handfuls of quarters weigh, so I find this actually pretty handy.
Just in case:
* A nickel is exactly 5 grams.
* A penny (1982+) is 2.5 grams.
* A dime is 0.08 ounces.
* A quarter is 0.2 ounces.
* 5 rolls of nickels = 1 kilogram
* 2 rolls of quarters = 1 pound.
Why did the U.S. Mint switch between even metric and even imperial units? Probably has to do with the changing metals in those coins. That said, the new small dollar coin is 8.1g / 0.286oz which makes no sense at all. It is, however, exactly 2mm thick.
[deleted]
Baby Ruth was known for using a heavy bat. Most players used lighter bats.
Generally I agree with you, but I think MLB has actually been pretty responsive to the modern-era dynamic nature of the game. Love them or hate them, they're trying rule changes in the minor leagues and bringing up the ones that work. To me in particular I found the shift frustrating as a fan, and was glad to see a game rule to address it. I also like that they are willing to admit they're wrong, like with the juiced balls. MLB has lots of issues but I think they're doing a pretty good job keeping the sport alive given all the circumstances.
Don’t you already want to hit the baseball as hard as you can at every opportunity? Just with the caveat that you need to develop skill with using a one-size-fits-all bat? Is bunting and going for balls that big of a deal currently, that a player who could rock one into left field would decide not to?
Surely any strategy around loading up bases to stack the deck for your strongest hitter remains, it seems like this levels between hitters more than from hitter to pitcher?
Surely any strategy around loading up bases to stack the deck for your strongest hitter remains, it seems like this levels between hitters more than from hitter to pitcher?
> Don’t you already want to hit the baseball as hard as you can at every opportunity?
Not at all! Always swinging for home runs is a recipe for a lot of strike outs. Singles and doubles win games.
Though, maybe not for long.
Not at all! Always swinging for home runs is a recipe for a lot of strike outs. Singles and doubles win games.
Though, maybe not for long.
The data show the only things that have had an impact on golf are the golf ball and speed training. And we’re rolling back the golf ball.
>The data show
It's the clubs and everyone knows it but nobody wants to admit it because the club manufacturers are the money behind the game.
You give a pro a persimmon driver and 70's blades and it doesn't matter if they're hitting a modern ball or the pre-pro v's from the 90s... you can't hit it out of your shoes because you won't be able to hit the sweet spot.
Yes, the ball is a problem, but it's not the problem. The problem is exactly that we've allowed the sweet spot to become too big, which has led to the end of the finesse aspect of the game.
It's the clubs and everyone knows it but nobody wants to admit it because the club manufacturers are the money behind the game.
You give a pro a persimmon driver and 70's blades and it doesn't matter if they're hitting a modern ball or the pre-pro v's from the 90s... you can't hit it out of your shoes because you won't be able to hit the sweet spot.
Yes, the ball is a problem, but it's not the problem. The problem is exactly that we've allowed the sweet spot to become too big, which has led to the end of the finesse aspect of the game.
I don't know as much about golf as you, but I have the urge to object to "finesse" being used to describe being able to hit a smaller sweetspot. Thinking of tennis, I would say finesse should be used to describe being able to vary your swing, putting "english" on the ball, soft tap dink shots, etc.
pros are going to be better with any type of equipment, and they're going to be better at finesse, but doesn't a bigger sweet spot allow amateurs to play with more finesse than they could otherwise? it means more reliably being able to fade, draw, etc. rather than slice and hook, and it means more people can enjoy the game.
pros are going to be better with any type of equipment, and they're going to be better at finesse, but doesn't a bigger sweet spot allow amateurs to play with more finesse than they could otherwise? it means more reliably being able to fade, draw, etc. rather than slice and hook, and it means more people can enjoy the game.
By "finesse" I just mean that the sweet spot is to small to consistently hit with a full powered swing, so by doing that, you're taking a huge risk. That's the way it was in the 70's, but it's just not that way any longer. The idea is that there needs to be a tradeoff between power and accuracy.
Here is Sam Snead in his prime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjEJgC5nYXw
Here is Bryson warming up today: https://www.reddit.com/r/golf/comments/1joeiap/vijay_just_lo...
It's like absolute night and day. It used to be a combination of balance and power. Now it's just brute force. The way Bryson is playing just isn't possible with a persimmon.
Here is Sam Snead in his prime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjEJgC5nYXw
Here is Bryson warming up today: https://www.reddit.com/r/golf/comments/1joeiap/vijay_just_lo...
It's like absolute night and day. It used to be a combination of balance and power. Now it's just brute force. The way Bryson is playing just isn't possible with a persimmon.
Golf is essentially a single player game that you play against yourself.
If you don't like a particular thing in golf, then don't use that particular thing. And if it destroys the entertainment value, then don't watch that.
This is very similar to how speedruns for video games have multiple categories with different rulesets, and you pick whichever one you like best.
If you don't like a particular thing in golf, then don't use that particular thing. And if it destroys the entertainment value, then don't watch that.
This is very similar to how speedruns for video games have multiple categories with different rulesets, and you pick whichever one you like best.
>Golf is essentially a single player game that you play against yourself.
With modern golf, yes. This is only because of the advent of television. Match-play used to dominate the game, and is still advocated my many (myself included), which allows direct competition, and introduces risk-reward strategy depending on how the other player plays.
With modern golf, yes. This is only because of the advent of television. Match-play used to dominate the game, and is still advocated my many (myself included), which allows direct competition, and introduces risk-reward strategy depending on how the other player plays.
Well, even match-play is about as interactive as running a race.
Very different from the direct interaction you have in a game like Baseball.
Very different from the direct interaction you have in a game like Baseball.
It's really not. You can absolutely change your strategy based on what the other player is doing.
Runners tell you the same thing. Or bicyclists.
Are those runners and bicyclists not confused? Taking a risk in golf could save a stroke or cost several; are runners making mistakes like "run harder for a bit but fall into a pond" or "run harder for a bit but exceed limits and take an injury"?
I think there's very much something to be said for standardizing equipment in sports that use it, at least to a point.
Indy car vs F1.
Indy car is every team essentially driving the same car. (The standardization you’re talking about)
F1 however, establishes guardrails for what teams can & cannot do. And then lets the teams innovate within those definitions.
Indy car is every team essentially driving the same car. (The standardization you’re talking about)
F1 however, establishes guardrails for what teams can & cannot do. And then lets the teams innovate within those definitions.
baseball is an arms race though. In golf the ball is on a tee.
In baseball, the pitchers get better every year, and throw faster every year.
There's innovation happening on both ends.
There's innovation happening on both ends.
If the pitchers are getting too good, just make it harder to pitch. Don't make it easier to hit better pitches.
Golf is also an arms race too. Look at the lengths of golf courses over the last 50 years. It's comical. It used to be 6000 yards was a championship course... now it's over 8000.
They used to put bunkers in front of greens to make them more challenging, but the equipment evolve to maximize height, and stop the ball on a dime. It's completely convoluted, because we just keep letting technology overcome every obstacle, but players don't like the obstacles, but you're not supposed to like the obstacles. So we let the tech overcome those obstacles, and then we build new, more difficult obstacles, and it's a never ending process of legalizing more tech, and then building more obstacles. And it continues until the game is unrecognizable from what it was a half century earlier.
Golf is also an arms race too. Look at the lengths of golf courses over the last 50 years. It's comical. It used to be 6000 yards was a championship course... now it's over 8000.
They used to put bunkers in front of greens to make them more challenging, but the equipment evolve to maximize height, and stop the ball on a dime. It's completely convoluted, because we just keep letting technology overcome every obstacle, but players don't like the obstacles, but you're not supposed to like the obstacles. So we let the tech overcome those obstacles, and then we build new, more difficult obstacles, and it's a never ending process of legalizing more tech, and then building more obstacles. And it continues until the game is unrecognizable from what it was a half century earlier.
Opposite advice. Take the best equipment and enjoy the game the most, focus on strategy with the increased options and capabilities.
So much time and frustration wasted with inferior equipment that sucks the life out, or requires a path of practice and mastery most people don't want for hobbies or things they enjoy doing.
If YOU want to use the least helpful tools and make up the difference with knowledge, skill and practice that's OK. To each their own and if you enjoy that then 100%. Just remember some people enjoy things in a lot of different ways.
So much time and frustration wasted with inferior equipment that sucks the life out, or requires a path of practice and mastery most people don't want for hobbies or things they enjoy doing.
If YOU want to use the least helpful tools and make up the difference with knowledge, skill and practice that's OK. To each their own and if you enjoy that then 100%. Just remember some people enjoy things in a lot of different ways.
If you really believe this, just go full bore and get a swingless golf club: https://youtu.be/MGpg8rclilc?si=S-vEbbtk3RWMAkg6
Man I really needed that last month playing with some friends. Would have been hilarious and more fun!. Bit of a reducto-ad-absurdum though isn't it.
But in all seriousness there is a difference between something that is forgiving and something that requires a high degree of practice to master. If its a hobby, get what is forgiving.
If you can't see the wisdom in that advice, well you can lead a horse to water eh.
But in all seriousness there is a difference between something that is forgiving and something that requires a high degree of practice to master. If its a hobby, get what is forgiving.
If you can't see the wisdom in that advice, well you can lead a horse to water eh.
Hasn't baseball already turned into this with the rise of three true outcomes?
I would expand this to any professional sport.
I know its unpopular opinion basically anywhere, but I detest most professional sports that have enough money in them for enough time. It literally and visibly corrupts game. Football (and hockey, basketball etc.) became monopoly game long time ago. Cycling became much worse re doping than bodybuilding ffs, literally everybody is dosing and the game is only about better evasion of newer compounds from ever-evolving tests. And so on.
There is very little former spirit of why games like olympics started. Just read about first few olympics how they were done. Very respectable achievements even if not the best times. But times should be largely irrelevant, it should be way more about team efforts, camaraderie, and internal motivation. Now its just chasing sponsors, promotions, routing to instagram accounts in bikinis for female athletes. I get it, it generates tons of cash, but I do sports and like them for sports, nothing else.
In contrary I still love sports cca on fringe, where sportsmen do it more for the love of it than anything more pragmatical. Thats real passion, not manufactured ones with big redbull or adidas logos all over the place and contracts running in millions or more.
When I extend it to personal level - I like running just by myself, no watch to track me. I know how much effort I do, every sporty person does very well. I don't care about my times, laps, energy spent, progression, getting better every week and so on. That's not a good reason to do it and sustain long term (apart from unhealthily competitive persons but thats another story).
I know its unpopular opinion basically anywhere, but I detest most professional sports that have enough money in them for enough time. It literally and visibly corrupts game. Football (and hockey, basketball etc.) became monopoly game long time ago. Cycling became much worse re doping than bodybuilding ffs, literally everybody is dosing and the game is only about better evasion of newer compounds from ever-evolving tests. And so on.
There is very little former spirit of why games like olympics started. Just read about first few olympics how they were done. Very respectable achievements even if not the best times. But times should be largely irrelevant, it should be way more about team efforts, camaraderie, and internal motivation. Now its just chasing sponsors, promotions, routing to instagram accounts in bikinis for female athletes. I get it, it generates tons of cash, but I do sports and like them for sports, nothing else.
In contrary I still love sports cca on fringe, where sportsmen do it more for the love of it than anything more pragmatical. Thats real passion, not manufactured ones with big redbull or adidas logos all over the place and contracts running in millions or more.
When I extend it to personal level - I like running just by myself, no watch to track me. I know how much effort I do, every sporty person does very well. I don't care about my times, laps, energy spent, progression, getting better every week and so on. That's not a good reason to do it and sustain long term (apart from unhealthily competitive persons but thats another story).
Yeah, no. All this does is make golf more accessible and engaging to the average weekend hacker with like a 19+ handicap. Not everyone has the natural talent to play scratch golf, and of those that don't, not everyone is committed enough to spend day after day at the driving range.
So all the tech improvements are doing is letting the average duffer keep it closer to the fairway and maybe have some fun, instead of getting so frustrated they quit.
So all the tech improvements are doing is letting the average duffer keep it closer to the fairway and maybe have some fun, instead of getting so frustrated they quit.
Slow game warns other slow game, hey you might get fast.
I totally agree.
To be fair, a pitching machine is pretty unnatural compared to a human pitcher (can’t see when it’s about to launch) and they are typically closer than 60 feet.
On the other hand, a real MLB pitcher is not just throwing fastballs down the middle.
On the other hand, a real MLB pitcher is not just throwing fastballs down the middle.
Very true. I dream to be able to hit off one of the fancy ones the players have at the facilities
NGL that sounds like a fun concept...
How cheap could one prototype a 'programmable' pitch machine that can handle the scenarios one would want to practice against?
How cheap could one prototype a 'programmable' pitch machine that can handle the scenarios one would want to practice against?
I have practiced on machines which can throw different pitches. There might be some mechanical enhancement required to quickly switch between different pitches though.
If every player ends up with a bat custom tailored to their swing this will get very interesting.
FWIW they already for the most part do have bats tailored to what they like to feel in their swings as far as where weight is, where the barrel begins, what shape it is, what the grip/knob feels like. I can't say how much data goes in to deciding what is used vs what they like to feel, this feels like more of a renaissance in attempting to use data somewhere else than brilliance in design.
My intuition tells me this whole thing is stupid and a fad, sure you might get slightly more mass behind the ball on perfectly barreled swings, but you get so few of those on the year already, were they already home runs of XBH on the old bat? And what are we losing on mishits with the skinny end of barrel, since after all hitting is more than just perfect swings caught in the right spot. Seems like more of a push towards feast or famine, 3 outcome baseball, which I personally just ain't a fan of.
My intuition tells me this whole thing is stupid and a fad, sure you might get slightly more mass behind the ball on perfectly barreled swings, but you get so few of those on the year already, were they already home runs of XBH on the old bat? And what are we losing on mishits with the skinny end of barrel, since after all hitting is more than just perfect swings caught in the right spot. Seems like more of a push towards feast or famine, 3 outcome baseball, which I personally just ain't a fan of.
That would be an interesting Show HN. A camera(s) setup with something like OpenCV and some ML processing to analyze a batter's swing, find their best bat shape, then use some sort of automated lathe to cut their bat based on the findings. Lather, rinse, repeat until you've iterated through to the "perfect" bat for that hitter.
It wouldn’t take long to have a tight selection of bats for every player to try and based on each swing, the system can predict the best bat.
Yeah, but that's not a very HN way of doing it though. Bring in the AI, then add some crypto, and the code must be written in Rust. If there's a UI, then Next/React must be used to re-write the existing HTML/CSS only version, because that's just not even trying. Oh, and it needs to be done over a weekend
this
You would increase bat speed (of your swing) by moving mass from the end towards your hands. Notice most regular bats have an "ice cream" scoop on the end, lightening it slightly.
The placebo effect is absolutely a thing. Players still get in trouble for corking bats even though it's been proven to have no effect (or a negative one) on hitting.
Every sport hits this sort of threshold where they ban optimization. Swimming did it with 'sharkskin' suits and long distance running with Nike's Alphafly and Vaporfly shoes.
Maybe that's where advanced baseball bats will end up eventually.
Maybe that's where advanced baseball bats will end up eventually.
Nike Alphafly and Vaporfly shoes are still allowed in sanctioned races but there is a 40mm limit on sole thickness (stack height).
https://www.therunningweek.com/post/carbon-plate-running-sho...
https://www.therunningweek.com/post/carbon-plate-running-sho...
Which is so silly. I would love to watch a sport where all the athletes are on cutting edge, dangerously experimental PEDs and all the equipment is engineered to the very limits of nature. We draw oddly arbitrary lines what is and isn’t ok in sports.
The line isn't purely arbitrary, it's a reflection of the reality of what most people expect from sports: we want them to be a contest of human skill on the part of the athlete, not just the amount of money someone is willing to spend on the team. We also want underdogs to have a chance, which is very hard without some sort of limits.
You could probably accomplish something similar by strictly capping spending per team to force people to do real engineering and optimize their play accordingly, but the result would be a very different sport that would appeal to a very different (and probably much smaller) audience. Formula One and Robot Wars come to mind.
You could probably accomplish something similar by strictly capping spending per team to force people to do real engineering and optimize their play accordingly, but the result would be a very different sport that would appeal to a very different (and probably much smaller) audience. Formula One and Robot Wars come to mind.
On the discussion at hand, is there reason to believe this new bat shape will be too expensive for other teams to copy?
I don't know enough to know, but my guess would be no. I was thinking of the swimsuit bans—my understanding is that the banned swimsuits are extremely expensive and wear out extremely quickly.
> we want them to be a contest of human skill on the part of the athlete, not just the amount of money someone is willing to spend on the team
This is simply not reflected very well in how professional sports are structured. If this were really a priority teams wouldn't be privately owned. It has extremely negative effects on each sport, easily dwarfing the influence of performance enhancing drugs.
Anyway, I would absolutely love to see what the human body is capable of. To me, hearing a ban of performance enhancing drugs is a guarantee of a more boring and less competitive game. I understand the impetus of protecting children, but we're already buying and selling humans. How good of an influence was this to begin with?
This is simply not reflected very well in how professional sports are structured. If this were really a priority teams wouldn't be privately owned. It has extremely negative effects on each sport, easily dwarfing the influence of performance enhancing drugs.
Anyway, I would absolutely love to see what the human body is capable of. To me, hearing a ban of performance enhancing drugs is a guarantee of a more boring and less competitive game. I understand the impetus of protecting children, but we're already buying and selling humans. How good of an influence was this to begin with?
Can you say more about the impact of private ownership? I don’t watch sports at all, so this is news to me — what are the negative effects? Is it just you get teams with massive funding and others with none?
Yea, and to be fair the leagues try to compensate for this with varying degrees of success by regulating how much you can spend, subsidizing poorer teams, etc.
But ultimately you run into issues like the colorado rockies where the owner just views it like an entertainment venue and basically refuses to invest in the team in any rational way. The entire model of competiton-through-investment doesn't make as much sense once you realize you can place butts in seats without a competent team to root for.
(And personally, i think it makes a lot of sense for the team to own itself, or a state to own a team, or something like that. I think the Green Bay Packers have a setup like this.)
It's also not possibly to divvy players rarely—sometimes you run into people who are truly extraordinary, and exorbitant salaries can help balance this, to debatable efficacy.
Edit: yup, https://www.packers.com/community/shareholders. Kind of an orthogonal issue to disproportionate spending of teams, though.
But ultimately you run into issues like the colorado rockies where the owner just views it like an entertainment venue and basically refuses to invest in the team in any rational way. The entire model of competiton-through-investment doesn't make as much sense once you realize you can place butts in seats without a competent team to root for.
(And personally, i think it makes a lot of sense for the team to own itself, or a state to own a team, or something like that. I think the Green Bay Packers have a setup like this.)
It's also not possibly to divvy players rarely—sometimes you run into people who are truly extraordinary, and exorbitant salaries can help balance this, to debatable efficacy.
Edit: yup, https://www.packers.com/community/shareholders. Kind of an orthogonal issue to disproportionate spending of teams, though.
If I’m understanding correctly, not only do you get teams with massive resources, but also teams treated kind of like clowns to entertain their owner? That really is a crazy situation, lol.
It almost sounds like corporate ownership could help with this, something like shareholders owning the team, and then the management is obligated to do what’s best for the shareholders (and somehow that should be to win). It seems like part of the problem might also be:
- sports teams make money by selling tickets and merchandise
- teams sell tickets and merchandise by being entertaining, which may or may not involve winning
It almost sounds like corporate ownership could help with this, something like shareholders owning the team, and then the management is obligated to do what’s best for the shareholders (and somehow that should be to win). It seems like part of the problem might also be:
- sports teams make money by selling tickets and merchandise
- teams sell tickets and merchandise by being entertaining, which may or may not involve winning
Part of the problem is that it trickles down and affects sport at lower levels. I was an age group swimmer (ages 10-18) when those suits came out. I can't remember exactly but it at least 10x'd the minimal equipment budget for the season. The suits were not only much more expensive but they wore out after a small number of races.
Suddenly a line was draw between have- and have-nots based on whose parents could and would buy this stuff. (My club, like many, practiced in a small municipal pool and it was very budget friendly. The fancy suits would be a large fraction of the annual cost to a family.)
In my opinion banning the suits was great for the sport at the age-group level, and thus the sport in general.
Suddenly a line was draw between have- and have-nots based on whose parents could and would buy this stuff. (My club, like many, practiced in a small municipal pool and it was very budget friendly. The fancy suits would be a large fraction of the annual cost to a family.)
In my opinion banning the suits was great for the sport at the age-group level, and thus the sport in general.
But it wouldn't be fun. It wouldn't be a good sport to participate. It would just be blood entertainment for the viewers.
Sports should be for those doing them, and then if people end up caring and commercial competitions end up viable, then that's a bonus but we shouldn't design them for entertainment of the audience.
Customization of equipment should always be fine unless it increases injury risk or completely destroys the game.
Sports should be for those doing them, and then if people end up caring and commercial competitions end up viable, then that's a bonus but we shouldn't design them for entertainment of the audience.
Customization of equipment should always be fine unless it increases injury risk or completely destroys the game.
Professional sports are all about entertaining the fans. If they can live a gladiator's life and ask "are you not entertained" and want to die in the lions den, then might as well let them.
Amateur sports like colleges or olympics could continue to have the traditional rules to keep things "competitive", but might as well let the pro-sports just go full tilt.
Amateur sports like colleges or olympics could continue to have the traditional rules to keep things "competitive", but might as well let the pro-sports just go full tilt.
If it's really about entertainment, then it has no appeal. Then you end up with professional wrestling. Professional sports are interesting because there's something fundamental, something challenging where someone's skill can shine.
> If it's really about entertainment, then it has no appeal. Then you end up with professional wrestling.
Do you not see the contradiction here? Professional wrestling is huge. It has very loyal fans. The fans pay for pay-per-view and live event sales. They buy merch. Nobody attends a WWE event expecting Greco-Roman style wrestling. They all know exactly what they are getting.
Do you not see the contradiction here? Professional wrestling is huge. It has very loyal fans. The fans pay for pay-per-view and live event sales. They buy merch. Nobody attends a WWE event expecting Greco-Roman style wrestling. They all know exactly what they are getting.
Only among certain kinds of people. But a European PM doesn't go watch professional wrestling, but if his country is doing well enough in association football and there's nothing incredibly important going on he will go to the match.
This is because winning in this game is seen as an achievement, and a natural and reasonable achievement-- after all, there are many world records that nobody cares about.
This is because winning in this game is seen as an achievement, and a natural and reasonable achievement-- after all, there are many world records that nobody cares about.
Well, if we're limiting the rules of sports in any country based on what a European PM does...
The point is more that a different kind of person can be interested in something where it's not entertainment per se.
There's a reason someone might prefer a sport over seeing a circus performance.
There's a reason someone might prefer a sport over seeing a circus performance.
Did you miss the part where I said other levels of sports could still be available for the more stringent rules? If you don’t like the rules of a professional league, don’t watch.
You’re arguing that others should not be allowed because you don’t like it.
You’re arguing that others should not be allowed because you don’t like it.
I suspect you've never known anyone who participates in the elite levels of popular sports. They are very rarely having fun.
All the major sports alter their rules every year to increase their entertainment value. Here is a short, non-exhaustive list off the top of my head: NBA flopping penalties, NBA player resting policy, MLB base stealing rule changes, MLB free base runners, MLB pitch clocks, NFL changing overtime rules almost every year, NFL challenges and reviews, etc.
There is nothing wrong with not having much knowledge of sports, but it might be worth reconsidering your strident opinions if that's the case.
All the major sports alter their rules every year to increase their entertainment value. Here is a short, non-exhaustive list off the top of my head: NBA flopping penalties, NBA player resting policy, MLB base stealing rule changes, MLB free base runners, MLB pitch clocks, NFL changing overtime rules almost every year, NFL challenges and reviews, etc.
There is nothing wrong with not having much knowledge of sports, but it might be worth reconsidering your strident opinions if that's the case.
I've actually even played sports against ex-elite players in the sports they were once among the best in the world in, although it was pretty obvious I had no chance. I've also played other sports with friends who were professional ice hockey players and professional association football players. I think what characterizes them is that they once at a time really hated losing, and you can question whether that is 'having fun' but I do think they were having fun at one point too.
But I agree that sports at the elite level aren't about health. It's not unusual to be doing things that at least risk injury.
I think these kinds of rule changes are destructive though. They certainly are in tennis.
But I agree that sports at the elite level aren't about health. It's not unusual to be doing things that at least risk injury.
I think these kinds of rule changes are destructive though. They certainly are in tennis.
all the athletes are on cutting edge, dangerously experimental PEDs
The problem here is of course that you probably won't get the best athletes in the world to sign up for that. So you'd be watching desperate and quite mediocre athletes who feel they have literally no other option in life.
The problem here is of course that you probably won't get the best athletes in the world to sign up for that. So you'd be watching desperate and quite mediocre athletes who feel they have literally no other option in life.
That would be a great show, but hardly a fair competition.
The spirit of fair competition (and thus ordering teams according to some predefined metric) is very important to most sports.
The spirit of fair competition (and thus ordering teams according to some predefined metric) is very important to most sports.
I wouldn't mind custom _diets_ (of normal food) and custom fabricated swim gear... provided the teams all had access to the same training tools before hand.
Custom drugs seem like a step too far IMO. As far as the suits go that's to level out body shapes as an issue.
Custom drugs seem like a step too far IMO. As far as the suits go that's to level out body shapes as an issue.
> We draw oddly arbitrary lines what is and isn’t ok in sports.
Are you suggesting the rules of sports are a natural property of the universe? It’s all completely arbitrary. That’s kind of the point: we watch people perform these arbitrary tasks and then we celebrate.
Are you suggesting the rules of sports are a natural property of the universe? It’s all completely arbitrary. That’s kind of the point: we watch people perform these arbitrary tasks and then we celebrate.
> Which is so silly. I would love to watch a sport where all the athletes are on cutting edge, dangerously experimental PEDs
It's called worker safety.
It's called worker safety.
Formula 1 is supposed to be like that except without the drugs. It’s a competition for both the racers and the manufacturers.
It's not though.
F1 introduced a cost cap to stop the top manufactures from being able to test and develop everything they want to.
F1 introduced a cost cap to stop the top manufactures from being able to test and develop everything they want to.
There's also a huge list of rules about things you're not allowed to do to make your car faster. F1 is quite far from simply building the fastest car, it's building the fastest car that adheres to this long list of 'arbitrary' rules and regulations.
It's never been the same without the cigarette & booze sponsors.
Cost caps are about how you can cheat. You still develop and test everything you want in the lab. Those that turn out useful get told to the F1 team.
This stopped being true a long time ago, as the best, fastest machines we could make were very deadly in an accident. If you know about F1, you know that Ayrton Senna, at the moment probably the best driver in the field, died on track. But people forget that he wasn't the only driver that died on that track that weekend: Roland Razemberger died in qualifying the day before! And one could argue that by then, they've already made significant changes to regulations to make the cars safer: Go see what happened when one of the old ground effect cars decided to lift off.
F1's regulations are very strict and completely artificial, just not quite so strict as to allow only 1 car. This is both for safety and cost control. In Schumacher's days, why did ferrari dominate so much? Because they have a private circuit, a much larger budget than anyone, and the racers flew back to the factory to spend long day after long day of testing right next to where the parts where being manufactured. We'd not have a full grid if anyone had to compete with budgets like that
F1's regulations are very strict and completely artificial, just not quite so strict as to allow only 1 car. This is both for safety and cost control. In Schumacher's days, why did ferrari dominate so much? Because they have a private circuit, a much larger budget than anyone, and the racers flew back to the factory to spend long day after long day of testing right next to where the parts where being manufactured. We'd not have a full grid if anyone had to compete with budgets like that
I mean, the "arbitrary" lines are what makes a sport what it is. The reason that you can't pick up the ball and run with it in football (soccer) isn't because they arbitrarily banned this "optimization" after some brilliant coach invented it.
> dangerously experimental PEDs
Brazilian jiu-jitsu /submission grappling is like this right now
The biggest events don't test. That's adcc and ibjjf tournaments only test the winners of black and belt and they can skip the testing somehow
Personally I think it's bad for the sport and hobby. Downstream effects where it normalizes ped use for hobbyist tournaments and delusional parents have their kids on steroids and try. The best don't win neccesarily, just who handles the drugs the best
Brazilian jiu-jitsu /submission grappling is like this right now
The biggest events don't test. That's adcc and ibjjf tournaments only test the winners of black and belt and they can skip the testing somehow
Personally I think it's bad for the sport and hobby. Downstream effects where it normalizes ped use for hobbyist tournaments and delusional parents have their kids on steroids and try. The best don't win neccesarily, just who handles the drugs the best
why do you think they're on dangerously experimental PEDs as opposed to the standard PED profile in combat sports?
> dangerously experimental PEDs
Would you be willing to be the guinea pig?
Would you be willing to be the guinea pig?
Why would you ask someone reading HN that question? That's like asking a 'roided up athlete if they wanted to rewrite grep in Rust. Ask the athlete if they'd be willing to take PEDs if it would be allowed.
You only need one athlete that's willing to. The others will have no choice after that.
It's no different than asking if workers should be allowed to work without PPE.
It's no different than asking if workers should be allowed to work without PPE.
If workers want to work without PPE, then let them. Just ensure that they sign releases acknowledging that the PPE was made available to them and they chose of their own volition to not use it, and that by doing so they release everyone from any liability about what happens to them from not using the PPE.
And whats to stop the industry from only hiring those people and firing everyone who wants protection under the guise of 'They aren't as productive" and going back to 19th century working conditions where people die on the regular to save pennies?
Foreman: "You want to work today, or go home and tell your family you're broke? No? Then sign the fucking form. We don't pay for PPE here."
Your comments go to show either a concerning lack of thought towards second-order effects, or a disturbing lack of empathy towards your fellow humans.
If everyone else is using PPE, but you choose not to wear PPE, there's no empathy to be given. You may think the need for PPE is a hoax, but that's not anyone else's problem if there's a direct repercussion for your actions.
The problem was not offered as your sibling comment as a forced decision. Some people choose to juice, others do not. That same logic applied to if you want to do it, here's the waiver to acknowledge it was your decision. I can feel sorry for someone's family for being related to a dunce, but no empathy is required on my part for the dunce.
The problem was not offered as your sibling comment as a forced decision. Some people choose to juice, others do not. That same logic applied to if you want to do it, here's the waiver to acknowledge it was your decision. I can feel sorry for someone's family for being related to a dunce, but no empathy is required on my part for the dunce.
You're still only thinking about direct effects, not second-order effects. Keep workin' that noggin you'll get there.
okay, so one guy can choose to do it, and have his career burn bright but for a smaller amount of time than the ones that don't juice and extend their careers and life after playing. The ones that juice, will just get little asterisks next to their names in whatever records are kept. But you keep thinking your noggin is the end all be all.
It's a slippery slope from there to "the children yearn for the mines".
You mean like deport those that do jobs that nobody else wants so we're not trying to lower the ages restrictions for those jobs? Not sure why the hypothetical slope is even necessary. We're doing it to ourselves
No more than I'm willing to drive a race car 200+ mph (i.e. formula 1) nor step in a boxing ring and accumulate a bunch of micro-concussions. But I'll happily tune in for the many that would be willing to do it if the money was right.
Why in the world would this have any bearing on the conversation? What point are you trying to make?
Why in the world would this have any bearing on the conversation? What point are you trying to make?
Do you watch sports because of the chance of people dying from accidents and because you know they are risking themselves, or despite it?
If the former, I regret to inform you: you are a psycopath.
If the latter, then please go read some Nassim Taleb and refrain from opining on what is acceptable risks for others unless you yourself are willing to pay for the consequences.
If the former, I regret to inform you: you are a psycopath.
If the latter, then please go read some Nassim Taleb and refrain from opining on what is acceptable risks for others unless you yourself are willing to pay for the consequences.
It’s called bodybuilding
>where they ban optimization
Always wondered why the NFL doesn't ban sticky gloves.
Always wondered why the NFL doesn't ban sticky gloves.
They did ban "Stickum" back in 1981, a goopy adhesive players were dipping their hands/gloves in.
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/56/66/25/12281186/4/960x0.webp
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/56/66/25/12281186/4/960x0.webp
They are available to all teams, financially affordable, do not make the ball dirty, and they lead to more spectacular catches. Why would they consider banning them?
It could get even more wild. I could imagine batters having custom profiles for different pitchers. E.g. one bat for when hitting against someone who throws 100MPH four seam fastballs, and another when facing someone who throws 90 MPH cutters.
I'm fine with it as long as they don't change bats in between pitches.
I'm picturing a caddy standing off to the side of the batter with a bag full of bats, sizing up the last pitch and say "May I suggest the pine with the conical twist sir?"
A caddy? How about an instant 3D printer\CNC machine?
If you find yourself in Louisville, Kentucky, you can see how they make bats at the factory. At least 20 years ago, it was already pretty automated. They put the blanks on a copy lathe and turn out bats from a template.
Sanding and finishing are subsequent steps.
Sanding and finishing are subsequent steps.
They are not fast enough and there is no reason to think machining ever will be.
That’s air golf at that point
I mean that's part of baseball as chess (or poker), right? The batter swaps to the fastball bat, communicating that they expect a fastball. The pitcher knows, from the coach's extensive scouting, and swaps to the curve. But actually, the batter knows he struggles with that kind of fastball and was hoping to bait the curveball, which he's more confident swinging against, and is happy to use a slightly suboptimized bat.
[deleted]
Baseball being the only 'pro' sport I'll go and watch...
I think it's an interesting mixup.
From a marketing standpoint;
- If certain batters have their 'ridge' in a specific spot/range, it adds marketability. e.x. 'This is the bat ????[0] uses'.
- OTOH the first danger with this is that most folks don't have the same stature/etc as the hitter in question, so it doesn't mean much.
- Lots of fan dollars to be made here though.
From a Game Standpoint:
- It vaguely detracts from accessibility; if this goes full, that means that 'pros' get a sort of custom bat that other leagues don't get, and from my view that impacts how folks are viewed.
- It's also a challenge of 'doing well with a good standard' vs 'doing well with a custom thing that happens to fit regs'. I suppose examples of other sports having similar (where a 'custom' item per player that fits regs, is legal for the sport and provides clear benefit) would make me feel a little better about this, maybe.
The Weird/offball:
- Saw a youtube video recently claiming some countries/municipalites have specific laws about not being allowed to carry a bat unless there was a glove and/or ball also involved in the process, would these also fall into it? (I said it was weird/offball, no I don't live in such a region [1], just morbid curiosity.)
[0] - It's been a minute since I've looked at Tigers stats who the hell are these folks and no wonder my family doesn't talk about baseball anymore
[1] - Per [0] I can at best tell funny stories about DPD and potato launchers I designed and had to explain to the police and non-authorized users and how same precinct gave specific advice as to "if we had to use a firearm in a home invasion, here is how we treat as self defense".
I think it's an interesting mixup.
From a marketing standpoint;
- If certain batters have their 'ridge' in a specific spot/range, it adds marketability. e.x. 'This is the bat ????[0] uses'.
- OTOH the first danger with this is that most folks don't have the same stature/etc as the hitter in question, so it doesn't mean much.
- Lots of fan dollars to be made here though.
From a Game Standpoint:
- It vaguely detracts from accessibility; if this goes full, that means that 'pros' get a sort of custom bat that other leagues don't get, and from my view that impacts how folks are viewed.
- It's also a challenge of 'doing well with a good standard' vs 'doing well with a custom thing that happens to fit regs'. I suppose examples of other sports having similar (where a 'custom' item per player that fits regs, is legal for the sport and provides clear benefit) would make me feel a little better about this, maybe.
The Weird/offball:
- Saw a youtube video recently claiming some countries/municipalites have specific laws about not being allowed to carry a bat unless there was a glove and/or ball also involved in the process, would these also fall into it? (I said it was weird/offball, no I don't live in such a region [1], just morbid curiosity.)
[0] - It's been a minute since I've looked at Tigers stats who the hell are these folks and no wonder my family doesn't talk about baseball anymore
[1] - Per [0] I can at best tell funny stories about DPD and potato launchers I designed and had to explain to the police and non-authorized users and how same precinct gave specific advice as to "if we had to use a firearm in a home invasion, here is how we treat as self defense".
I genuinely can't understand the thought process of a Yankees fan. If it's just a tradition thing, then sure whatever. But someone who watches them play and goes "yeah that's my team" is just mindblowing. They'll have a batting lineup that costs more than the opponents entire field, knowing full well they are all just hired guns who will be gone the moment the contract is up, and then you watch them in the playoffs against regular teams and it's just visually hilarious at this point. Like watching a bunch of NFL linebackers playing teeball.
Some people want to back a winner, and they don't really get too worked up about the details. Another example would be Ferrari in early 2000s in F1. Biggest budget, most skilled driver, all the dirty tricks at all levels (on-track, technical, political), plenty of fans.
> I genuinely can't understand the thought process of a Yankees fan.
There is very little free agency in American sports fandom. People are (for the most part) fans of the team local to where they grew up. (This kind of bums me out as someone raising kids in New England, which is not where I'm from, and so not whose teams I root for.)
There is very little free agency in American sports fandom. People are (for the most part) fans of the team local to where they grew up. (This kind of bums me out as someone raising kids in New England, which is not where I'm from, and so not whose teams I root for.)
Backing the local team always makes the most sense. In NYC you can choose Mets or Yankees (though where you live in the city affects even that). Choosing a team from some other city means you see your team play much less often and only after much effort. Worse there are less people to talk about the game as nobody has seen your team play and you didn't see their team plan. (except when your team plans the local team)
[deleted]
[deleted]
That is true of all Poe sport in the USA. No salary cap and teams are a franchise that exist to make money.
> it really freaking hurts and throws off subsequent swings.
Totally ignorant about baseball, but would wearing thick padded gloves help? Do major leaguers build up calluses to help?
Totally ignorant about baseball, but would wearing thick padded gloves help? Do major leaguers build up calluses to help?
The problem isn't friction from the grip (that can occasionally pop up), the issue is when you hit the wrong spot and the energy of the ball gets dumped entirely into your hands instead of evenly distributed through the bat.
That is what padding gloves help with. Though I suspect thick padding causes less control of the bat and so overall isn't worth it.
It just doesn't help that much to be worth the change in mechanics and the compromise on grip strength - too much energy, too quickly to effectively dissipate. I stopped playing competitively in my teens and I still remember how much that hurts.
Padded gloves do throw off your swing / bat "feel". You do now see a lot of guys wearing a little rubber donut thing on the thumb of their top hand. That helps a lot with absorbing the vibration from a mis-hit. It still shivers your hands, but you don't get the piercing pain focused right at the base of your thumb.
[Edit] You do build up some crazy calluses swinging a bat for hours upon hours of practice. They absolutely don't help, like at all, when you strike a ball in on the handle of the bat. It always hurts.
[Edit] You do build up some crazy calluses swinging a bat for hours upon hours of practice. They absolutely don't help, like at all, when you strike a ball in on the handle of the bat. It always hurts.
Gloves help, calluses don’t. It’s also a lot worse in the cold.
Hitting is hard (and that's why the best hitters make the big bucks), but as an aside, it seems like batters get more and more help each year: DH in the NL, outlawing defensive shifts, pitch clock, etc. It's not a surprise that the league will be on board with any change that favors the offense (we've also seen pick off attempt limits and bigger bases which help the base runners).
"typical MLB fastball"s aren't 105
I'd like to see a slow-mo shot of a bad hitting a ball in the 'sweet spot' and not in the sweet spot, to see how they differ.
I assume that when not hit in the sweet spot a lot of the energy gets transformed into vibrations in the bat. Those vibrations then hurt your wrist/arm because flesh absorbs ~100 Hz vibrations far more than wood does.
I assume that when not hit in the sweet spot a lot of the energy gets transformed into vibrations in the bat. Those vibrations then hurt your wrist/arm because flesh absorbs ~100 Hz vibrations far more than wood does.
Let’s also not forget that a pitch machine will deliver consistent throws where a player won’t. It’s 10x harder to hit a real moving 90mph fastball than a straight dinner plate, if you can even manage the plate.
The bat will add probably 0.2-0.5% longer bombs statistically but it’s still a skill of the player at bat that makes the difference.
The bat will add probably 0.2-0.5% longer bombs statistically but it’s still a skill of the player at bat that makes the difference.
Even as a dirty Red Sox fan, I was quite amused at Judge's response when he was asked about it (quoting from a similar article on this from The Guardian):
> “The past couple of seasons kind of speak for itself,” Judge said a day after his third career three-homer game. “Why try to change something?”
He's certainly not wrong!
> “The past couple of seasons kind of speak for itself,” Judge said a day after his third career three-homer game. “Why try to change something?”
He's certainly not wrong!
> Brewer's pitching is injured, and the starter that day was a Yankee last year and the team is intimately familiar with his game.
Is this one of those situations where the Yankees are even still paying part of his salary?
Is this one of those situations where the Yankees are even still paying part of his salary?
I don't know, but those situations exist and they might be more problematic than baseball is willing to admit. The pitcher may get more from the Yankees than the Brewers. So the pitcher may have more incentive to make sure the Yankees don't go bankrupt. Hmmm.
[deleted]
You can just be shitty and get the same experience. My wife and I went to a batting cage once and tried to hit some balls.
There is a marked difference between hitting it in the sweet spot and not.
There is a marked difference between hitting it in the sweet spot and not.
If only the Yankees get access to it (e.g. they patented it and won't let other teams use it) then I could see it as an unfair advantage. In most other areas of America life, though, this innovation would be allowed or even celebrated.
I imagine it will go the way of the brilliant strategic innovation a few years back of shifting defenders heavily depending on the batter's statistical hitting patterns. It'll get banned because it makes the game more boring. If home runs happen all the time, they lose their excitement. I imagine it's quite expensive or impossible to shift the outfield walls back farther in most MLB stadiums.
I actually would love more of a no holds barred evolutionary battle in the MLB [1] but I know it's not gonna happen.
[1] https://youtu.be/gTmLz9B8wls
I imagine it will go the way of the brilliant strategic innovation a few years back of shifting defenders heavily depending on the batter's statistical hitting patterns. It'll get banned because it makes the game more boring. If home runs happen all the time, they lose their excitement. I imagine it's quite expensive or impossible to shift the outfield walls back farther in most MLB stadiums.
I actually would love more of a no holds barred evolutionary battle in the MLB [1] but I know it's not gonna happen.
[1] https://youtu.be/gTmLz9B8wls
If only the Yankees get access to this, the rest of the league will simply vote to outlaw it.
You see something similar going on in football, right now, with a play known as the "tush push". It's not a particularly complex play, but for some reason the Philadelphia Eagles can pull it off astoundingly better than anyone else in the league. In response, several teams are petitioning rules to outlaw it. All it takes is enough teams to vote for banning this play and it's gone.
You see something similar going on in football, right now, with a play known as the "tush push". It's not a particularly complex play, but for some reason the Philadelphia Eagles can pull it off astoundingly better than anyone else in the league. In response, several teams are petitioning rules to outlaw it. All it takes is enough teams to vote for banning this play and it's gone.
One additional wrinkle to the tush push is that it WAS illegal until the mid-2000s. Sort of like the 3 point line in basketball, it has taken many years for a team to take advantage of the new rule to its fullest extent.
I think people generally take the perspective of "it used to be illegal, so it's reasonable to make it illegal again" in a way they don't when a team is just doing something new.
I think people generally take the perspective of "it used to be illegal, so it's reasonable to make it illegal again" in a way they don't when a team is just doing something new.
It's like when people started to freak out about the "pitch clock" and how it was ruining baseball. The thing is, the pitch clock _always_ existed in the rulebook, it was just never enforced due to lack of technology and just generally never really being a problem.
And then pitchers started taking 1 minute+ to throw a dang pitch and it was ruining the flow of the game. So they started enforcing it.
And then pitchers started taking 1 minute+ to throw a dang pitch and it was ruining the flow of the game. So they started enforcing it.
> You see something similar going on in football, right now, with a play known as the "tush push".
As a European that just woke up from a nap, I was having a very hard time imagning a soccer move called "tush push" that was so successful it had to be outlawed...
As a European that just woke up from a nap, I was having a very hard time imagning a soccer move called "tush push" that was so successful it had to be outlawed...
Philly is known as the city of brotherly love so there was a movement on r/nfl to have it be named the brotherly shove. Never quite caught on though.
Often lost in the debate is the fact that the Philly QB is uncommonly athletic for his position and that Philly typically has a top-5 O-line on any given year.
Often lost in the debate is the fact that the Philly QB is uncommonly athletic for his position and that Philly typically has a top-5 O-line on any given year.
My small daughter is watching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Tsubasa , and I think I saw something like that in one episode.
We'll see if the analogy holds. Every team has the ability to use bats like this.
If no other team sees an advantage from using torpedo bats, it would be a lot like the brotherly shove.
But first we'll have to see if this is a passing fad. In baseball, pitchers evolve pretty quickly and usually lead the batter-pitcher arms race.
I'm guessing it spread pretty quickly through the league and be used by a minority of hitters, and the advantage will flatten out. So a .210 hitter may hit .230. That is a big difference no doubt, but compare the game to when leading batters were hitting .330.
If no other team sees an advantage from using torpedo bats, it would be a lot like the brotherly shove.
But first we'll have to see if this is a passing fad. In baseball, pitchers evolve pretty quickly and usually lead the batter-pitcher arms race.
I'm guessing it spread pretty quickly through the league and be used by a minority of hitters, and the advantage will flatten out. So a .210 hitter may hit .230. That is a big difference no doubt, but compare the game to when leading batters were hitting .330.
The have the rule where the team defending the field goal is not allowed to act like a “locomotive” to push thru and try to block the kick, which would almost certainly work because the edge blockers cannot just defend come inside to defend it.
The tush push shouldn’t be allowed because is almost impossible to defend, sort of an automatic 1 yarder once you get there. The snapping team always have advantage because they know the start timing and the defense always has to react a split second later.
The tush push shouldn’t be allowed because is almost impossible to defend, sort of an automatic 1 yarder once you get there. The snapping team always have advantage because they know the start timing and the defense always has to react a split second later.
Is almost impossible to defend when done by a particular team. No other team has managed the kind of sustained success with it that the Eagles have. If it was impossible to defend surely other teams would be using it too.
Tom Brady also had similar success with the standard old QB sneak during his career and I don't recall attempts to ban that.
Tom Brady also had similar success with the standard old QB sneak during his career and I don't recall attempts to ban that.
In both cases why not?
1. Make the kicker kick from farther out in that case. Pretty simple change.
2. 1 yard is kind of nothing in this league now when the referees have so much leeway to change yardage. They get the spot wrong ALL the damn time now. So what if it's automatic for some teams. And so what if the offense has the advantage there. That's sport. Same thing in soccer on penalty kicks, the kicker has the advantage there knowing where he's going to kick.
1. Make the kicker kick from farther out in that case. Pretty simple change.
2. 1 yard is kind of nothing in this league now when the referees have so much leeway to change yardage. They get the spot wrong ALL the damn time now. So what if it's automatic for some teams. And so what if the offense has the advantage there. That's sport. Same thing in soccer on penalty kicks, the kicker has the advantage there knowing where he's going to kick.
the rule for FG/XP attempts is for the safety of the long snapper, not the kicker
Right, but if the kicker needs to move further back in response, the tactic doesn't work anymore so the snapper is safe as well.
> the "tush push". It's not a particularly complex play, but for some reason the Philadelphia Eagles can pull it off astoundingly better than anyone else in the league
I looked this up and am still unclear why only the Eagles seem to be able to perform this maneuver effectively, other than having an exceptionally strong person at the front?
I looked this up and am still unclear why only the Eagles seem to be able to perform this maneuver effectively, other than having an exceptionally strong person at the front?
It's strength, size and technique of multiple people working together.
You'd think it'd be easy to watch game footage and just replicate what the Eagles do, but other teams haven't been able to get the formula right.
This is the reason that banning it is controversial. Why make it illegal when most teams can't make work well?
You'd think it'd be easy to watch game footage and just replicate what the Eagles do, but other teams haven't been able to get the formula right.
This is the reason that banning it is controversial. Why make it illegal when most teams can't make work well?
Contrary to popular belief, it requires a fair bit of practice to get right, which is why you see hater GMs saying oh, yeah, it's so simple we could do it if we wanted, but then they try it in a game after one practice and it fails. The Eagles spent several years practicing it, so now they're that far behind.
They need to get some rugby coaches in to teach it. That's a super-basic rugby technique, which even I (as only a very casual rugby fan) can see most teams getting wrong.
What basic rugby technique?
A rugby scrum is highly regimented, it's not the optimal way for 3 (or 5 or 8) guys to push the other team back, it's the optimal way to do it given that they must be bound in a particular way.
A rugby ruck or maul is more freeform and maybe some of the techniques from those can be applied to NFL, but small differences in rules make a big difference there too.
On a different question, though, sure, the Eagles have a massive and strong QB who is perfect for this play, but other teams have huge guys playing other positions. Why not have a different quarterback for your QB sneak / tush push plays? Specialist players for niche situations is a trademark of the NFL compared to other professional sports, and this play doesn't rely on the element of surprise. You don't need to have your best player at passing the ball also be the strongest at breaking the line.
A rugby scrum is highly regimented, it's not the optimal way for 3 (or 5 or 8) guys to push the other team back, it's the optimal way to do it given that they must be bound in a particular way.
A rugby ruck or maul is more freeform and maybe some of the techniques from those can be applied to NFL, but small differences in rules make a big difference there too.
On a different question, though, sure, the Eagles have a massive and strong QB who is perfect for this play, but other teams have huge guys playing other positions. Why not have a different quarterback for your QB sneak / tush push plays? Specialist players for niche situations is a trademark of the NFL compared to other professional sports, and this play doesn't rely on the element of surprise. You don't need to have your best player at passing the ball also be the strongest at breaking the line.
I was thinking of a maul, yeah. What I've spotted is NFL guys pushing with their hands on a teammate's back, instead of (like in rugby, or what the Eagles do) getting their shoulders against his ass or upper thighs, which gives more power and better leverage.
Good point about using different players, and I even think I've seen that a time or two. As for why not always do it, I'm only guessing, but there may be an inherent advantage in preserving the possibility that it won't be a "tush push" play (I mean, maybe not for the Eagles, because they're so good at it, but for other teams who aren't). Like, maybe it keeps the linebackers a step or two deeper and increases the likelihood of success; or, if they provoke a "tush push" defense that opens up a more-promising play then the QB is best placed to run the counter. I don't really know, though.
Good point about using different players, and I even think I've seen that a time or two. As for why not always do it, I'm only guessing, but there may be an inherent advantage in preserving the possibility that it won't be a "tush push" play (I mean, maybe not for the Eagles, because they're so good at it, but for other teams who aren't). Like, maybe it keeps the linebackers a step or two deeper and increases the likelihood of success; or, if they provoke a "tush push" defense that opens up a more-promising play then the QB is best placed to run the counter. I don't really know, though.
They've recruited the players necessary to pull it off effectively. That's not a simple thing to remedy for other teams.
Three massive offensive linemen plus a very strong QB.
If it gives any unfair advantage at all, the Astros will figure out a way to use them ASAP.
([1,2] For those that don't get the snide reference to cheating.)
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/article/astros-cheating.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Astros_sign_stealing_s...
([1,2] For those that don't get the snide reference to cheating.)
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/article/astros-cheating.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Astros_sign_stealing_s...
Ohhh I get it now — the joke is that the Astros are crooks. Like, actual cheaters who got away with it. Hilarious stuff. Classic. (=
But seriously, they stole a World Series and faced zero real consequences. It’s like watching a gang of bank robbers walk free because the judge thought, “Well, gosh, they seemed like nice young men.”
Imagine if John Wilkes Booth had been caught, and the government just said, “Eh, let’s move on. No hard feelings.” That’s the Astros. MLB gave them a juice box and a pat on the head.
Total joke. Crooks.
But seriously, they stole a World Series and faced zero real consequences. It’s like watching a gang of bank robbers walk free because the judge thought, “Well, gosh, they seemed like nice young men.”
Imagine if John Wilkes Booth had been caught, and the government just said, “Eh, let’s move on. No hard feelings.” That’s the Astros. MLB gave them a juice box and a pat on the head.
Total joke. Crooks.
And then they won it again. Cope.
There are already other teams using these bats, and it seems like they will spread pretty quickly: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6243085/2025/03/31/mlb-torp...
I don't know why anyone would be upset about this, but baseball fans tend to be curmudgeons.
I don't know why anyone would be upset about this, but baseball fans tend to be curmudgeons.
> If home runs happen all the time, they lose their excitement.
TV ratings show otherwise - in every instance so far, HRs put butts in seats, and defense makes people change the channel. TV and ballpark analytics show this to be true. The common thought is that's why the league ignored abuse during the steroid era so much.
edit - This is also the driving force behind multiple 'juiced ball' conspiracy theories.
TV ratings show otherwise - in every instance so far, HRs put butts in seats, and defense makes people change the channel. TV and ballpark analytics show this to be true. The common thought is that's why the league ignored abuse during the steroid era so much.
edit - This is also the driving force behind multiple 'juiced ball' conspiracy theories.
While home runs are exciting, there are limits to that. For several years the MLB has been dealing with "three true outcomes", where a large percentage of at bats end in either a strikeout, walk, or home run.
While this can be exciting for individual at bats, it becomes pretty boring if it's too common. This is because it invalidates every role except the pitcher and batter, and removes a lot of strategy from the game. While this may be fine if you only watch the occasional game, it can get really dull if you watch a lot of games every season.
Home runs are a lot of fun! One of the things that makes baseball exciting is that every pitch has the potential to result in a home run. This adds a lot of tension to the game, and helps keep things engaging. But when home runs become too prevalent, it eliminates other fun aspects of baseball, and makes the game one dimensional and dull.
While this can be exciting for individual at bats, it becomes pretty boring if it's too common. This is because it invalidates every role except the pitcher and batter, and removes a lot of strategy from the game. While this may be fine if you only watch the occasional game, it can get really dull if you watch a lot of games every season.
Home runs are a lot of fun! One of the things that makes baseball exciting is that every pitch has the potential to result in a home run. This adds a lot of tension to the game, and helps keep things engaging. But when home runs become too prevalent, it eliminates other fun aspects of baseball, and makes the game one dimensional and dull.
I believe the opposite to that era is the "Dead-ball era" over a hundred years ago.
> During the dead-ball era, baseball was much more of a strategy-driven game, using a style of play now known as small ball or inside baseball. It relied much more on plays such as stolen bases and hit-and-run than on home runs.
This was likely caused by reusing baseballs more, so it should be easy to recreate,
> Before 1921, it was common for a baseball to be in play for over 100 pitches. Players used the same ball until it started to unravel. Early baseball leagues were very cost-conscious, so fans had to throw back balls that had been hit into the stands. The longer the ball was in play, the softer it became—and hitting a heavily used, softer ball for distance is much more difficult than hitting a new, harder one. The ball was also softer to begin with, making home runs less likely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era
> During the dead-ball era, baseball was much more of a strategy-driven game, using a style of play now known as small ball or inside baseball. It relied much more on plays such as stolen bases and hit-and-run than on home runs.
This was likely caused by reusing baseballs more, so it should be easy to recreate,
> Before 1921, it was common for a baseball to be in play for over 100 pitches. Players used the same ball until it started to unravel. Early baseball leagues were very cost-conscious, so fans had to throw back balls that had been hit into the stands. The longer the ball was in play, the softer it became—and hitting a heavily used, softer ball for distance is much more difficult than hitting a new, harder one. The ball was also softer to begin with, making home runs less likely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era
I dig it
I don't quite get what the difference is between now and when Sosa, Bonds, and McGuire were hitting homers, where apparently homers are monotonous. Are we pretending that wasn’t peak baseball? I mean I find the whole infield outside of maybe a triple play more boring than all or nothing home run, intentional walk, and strikeout.
There are no grand slams without base hits true, but without the home runs base hits are boring.
Close plays on the base paths are pretty exciting.
> I mean I find the whole infield outside of maybe a triple play more boring than all or nothing home run, intentional walk, and strikeout.
The problem is that the strikeout or walk is much more common than the home run.
> I mean I find the whole infield outside of maybe a triple play more boring than all or nothing home run, intentional walk, and strikeout.
The problem is that the strikeout or walk is much more common than the home run.
... On reflection, reading this thread, I think this may be yet more of the "baseball is a radio sport" thing, which is also why it dominated before TV, when football started to take over.
Descriptions of close plays are fun. Homers are flashy to watch and easy to understand. The latter may catch more casual-viewer eyeballs.
Descriptions of close plays are fun. Homers are flashy to watch and easy to understand. The latter may catch more casual-viewer eyeballs.
For sure, that makes a lot of intuitive sense. I was thinking that there's a sweet spot with HRs. If it gets too common then it may be less of a dopamine hit. Kinda like how the randomness of slot machines is fine-tuned to maximize addictive potential.
However, one could argue the same thing about Curry and 3 pointers. My original argument suggests that seeing someone makes loads more 3 pointers would be boring. Yet it was very exciting to see him smash through previously unthinkable records. On the other hand, that was not driven by technological change…
However, one could argue the same thing about Curry and 3 pointers. My original argument suggests that seeing someone makes loads more 3 pointers would be boring. Yet it was very exciting to see him smash through previously unthinkable records. On the other hand, that was not driven by technological change…
3 pointers are actually the opposite problem; they turn out to be more efficient but they make the game a lot more boring to watch.
> they make the game a lot more boring to watch.
I disagree. Go watch some of the old games before 3 pointers. Teams would pack the defense into the key and the game would get really boring. It was also brutal--driving to the bucket on a packed defense like that would get you mugged.
3 pointers force defenses to move outward. Illegal defense penalties also helped.
I disagree. Go watch some of the old games before 3 pointers. Teams would pack the defense into the key and the game would get really boring. It was also brutal--driving to the bucket on a packed defense like that would get you mugged.
3 pointers force defenses to move outward. Illegal defense penalties also helped.
I disagree, and I've been watching basketball for 40 years. Basketball with positions was more fun to watch and objectively more popular amongst the viewing audience than this current dreck with positionless basketball and basically no travelling rules. Defenders are afraid to play defense and offensive players can just step back without a dribble to create separation. It's a terrible, boring product to watch because it's reduced the best athletes on the planet to standing around waiting for an open look at a 3. They don't need to get rid of 3s, but they need to modify what they are for. They're supposed to be a bonus shot, not the fundamental aspect of offenses. Eliminating the mid range is bad for the sport.
Yes, because home runs still are not that regular of an occurrence. So they're still "special".
But if they become a lot more commonplace, then the allure will depreciate over time.
But if they become a lot more commonplace, then the allure will depreciate over time.
Title of the url says it all: https://old.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1e5mwbs/mlb_home_...
It's not about watching home runs; it's mostly about watching a competitive game.
It's not about watching home runs; it's mostly about watching a competitive game.
This has the potential to multiply the issues with Fenway and other older fields dramatically.
Aluminum bats are better than wooden bats. You need arbitrary rules on technology for sporting equipment.
I have no strong feelings on these bats, but there are concerns other than just fairness from one team to the next.
I have no strong feelings on these bats, but there are concerns other than just fairness from one team to the next.
how do you ban shifting defenders? i admittedly know nothing about baseball, but surely the team can dispatch its people wherever it likes within the legal zone for them to be at all.
Before the shift ban, there could be 3 players on one side of 2nd base. The rule now is that there have to be two fielders on either side on 2nd when the pitch is delivered. Essentially, they changed the legal zone
When there was a left handed pull hitter at at the plate, the third baseman would move to where the shortstop was, the shortstop would move to second base, and the second baseman would be on shallow right field. Third base was left completely undefended. I always wondered why hitters couldn’t just practice a late swing and send a chopper down the third base line …
The new rule says there has to be two infielders on either side of of second base when the pitcher delivers They still shift just not as much
The new rule says there has to be two infielders on either side of of second base when the pitcher delivers They still shift just not as much
> If home runs happen all the time, they lose their excitement.
So you're saying baseball gets more boring when people get better hitting the ball?
Sounds like there's something fundamentally wrong with the sport.
So you're saying baseball gets more boring when people get better hitting the ball?
Sounds like there's something fundamentally wrong with the sport.
So long as it's not a one sided advantage, the game will be fair and way more exciting. Even now, there's a huge difference in attending, and watching on TV, a game that is 1-0 going into the 9th inning versus a game that is 5-4 going into the 9th. Even though those are even matches at that point in the game, one of them feels painful the other has had some excitement. Good defense is not as exciting as productive offense.
That doesn't follow at all.
Imagine if, somehow, soccer players got really good at scoring goals from midfield, such that a very high proportion of goals were scored after just two touches. That's exciting or interesting for, like... one game, then it's worse than before.
Are you there to watch people score goals, or to watch people play the game?
If there's a home-run more at-bats than not, they get boring. You do want plenty of solid hits (but you also want strike-outs! And walks! And bunts! You want diversity!) but you don't want a lot of them to be homers.
A home run is only exciting if it's uncommon, otherwise it's less interesting than most other things that can happen when the ball's hit into fair territory.
Imagine if, somehow, soccer players got really good at scoring goals from midfield, such that a very high proportion of goals were scored after just two touches. That's exciting or interesting for, like... one game, then it's worse than before.
Are you there to watch people score goals, or to watch people play the game?
If there's a home-run more at-bats than not, they get boring. You do want plenty of solid hits (but you also want strike-outs! And walks! And bunts! You want diversity!) but you don't want a lot of them to be homers.
A home run is only exciting if it's uncommon, otherwise it's less interesting than most other things that can happen when the ball's hit into fair territory.
Or we could just let the robots play https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqB6rY94DCw&t=55s (and football too) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=818agkUTpqM&t=69s
He never said why it's bad, just that players he thinks suck should continue to suck and he doesn't like that they don't suck anymore.
He briefly alluded to a valid point but went no where with it about how it may affect little league and college with less money, but that is completely separate from MLB teams using millions of dollars for custom bats.
He briefly alluded to a valid point but went no where with it about how it may affect little league and college with less money, but that is completely separate from MLB teams using millions of dollars for custom bats.
>> He never said why it's bad, just that players he thinks suck should continue to suck and he doesn't like that they don't suck anymore.
Bad players should continue to suck unless they put in the effort to be better. If you're a batter and can't hit the ball with the right part of the bat (especially experienced guys like Chilsolm) you're simply bad at your job. This is like getting a crappy NBA player and putting some Flubber on his shoes[1]. In all sport the tools are going to push performance a certain amount of but this feels beyond the limit for me.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119137/
Bad players should continue to suck unless they put in the effort to be better. If you're a batter and can't hit the ball with the right part of the bat (especially experienced guys like Chilsolm) you're simply bad at your job. This is like getting a crappy NBA player and putting some Flubber on his shoes[1]. In all sport the tools are going to push performance a certain amount of but this feels beyond the limit for me.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119137/
> If you're a batter and can't hit the ball with the right part of the bat
But that is what they are doing? The bat is within size and volume limits. Many bats come in slightly odd shapes or weight distributions. Is it because this is "optimized" that it's bad?
But that is what they are doing? The bat is within size and volume limits. Many bats come in slightly odd shapes or weight distributions. Is it because this is "optimized" that it's bad?
It feels like one of those things where even though it’s within the limits of the rules, it just shows they need to tighten the rules. The end result is everyone having their own customised bat and it’s just a big waste of time. Better to tighten up the rules. If I had my way there would be one legal bat that everyone had to use. Sport should be about the athlete, not the tool.
Should everyone wear the same size shoes?
Because baseball bats must all have only one size and shape? Or just not this shape?
I thought little league and college use metal bats since they are cheaper so there won't be any effect.
"you can’t just make a new bat and ruin over 100 years of baseball"
If this jabroni was in charge of sports, there'd be no forward pass, no three-point line, no fosbury flop. Sports should be frozen in a specific moment of this guy's choosing. MLB batting averages have been on a steady, multi-decade decline as pitching quality and strategy has improved[1], so God forbid we do something to add some offense.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/mlb-vanishing-offense-allstar-b48...
If this jabroni was in charge of sports, there'd be no forward pass, no three-point line, no fosbury flop. Sports should be frozen in a specific moment of this guy's choosing. MLB batting averages have been on a steady, multi-decade decline as pitching quality and strategy has improved[1], so God forbid we do something to add some offense.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/mlb-vanishing-offense-allstar-b48...
Seeing “jabroni” said on HN made my day
Two players used the bats. I'm not a Yankees fan, but all these articles are making it seem like the bats are the reason. That does not explain why the rest of the lineup went off. Perhaps poor pitching is the better explanation. Too much is being made of these bats.
Also, golf club technology basically does the same thing. Everything is about making a bigger sweet spot. Oversize drivers and irons didn't seem to ruin the game.
Also, golf club technology basically does the same thing. Everything is about making a bigger sweet spot. Oversize drivers and irons didn't seem to ruin the game.
> Two players used the bats
I'm not convinced how much of the offensive onslaught was due to the bats either, but all of the sources I've heard/read have indicated that 5 players in the Yankees starting lineup have been using the bats:
https://apnews.com/article/torpedo-bats-yankees-6ac6c797ea93...
https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/which-mlb-players-are-u...
I'm not convinced how much of the offensive onslaught was due to the bats either, but all of the sources I've heard/read have indicated that 5 players in the Yankees starting lineup have been using the bats:
https://apnews.com/article/torpedo-bats-yankees-6ac6c797ea93...
https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/which-mlb-players-are-u...
There’s a lot of debate in golf if the game had been spoiled at professional levels because of modern gear. Courses have been made longer to accommodate and it’s very likely there’s less reliance on skill today. All the optimizations are around speed today because with such huge faces and low MoIs guys won’t miss when swinging even harder.
In fact you could argue golf should be more like baseball in that lower skilled players and amateurs use large metal clubs whereas pros use small wooden clubs.
In fact you could argue golf should be more like baseball in that lower skilled players and amateurs use large metal clubs whereas pros use small wooden clubs.
There do exist traditionalist golf leagues that use classic club styles and balls that are way less flashy than the modern stuff.
I briefly looked into it after playing Golf Story on the Switch, which features an area where you have to use a set of historical clubs (sometimes with different names from the modern versions!) and found such leagues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickory_golf
I briefly looked into it after playing Golf Story on the Switch, which features an area where you have to use a set of historical clubs (sometimes with different names from the modern versions!) and found such leagues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickory_golf
Indeed and I can see the appeal on old courses that were designed for a ground game that doesn’t exist in the modern aerial game. Especially if you have firm conditions like in Scotland.
Reading about these was the first time I was even tempted to take up golf. Smaller courses are really appealing—the huge courses of modern golf kinda stress me out, and I've also got a vague and not-strongly-held dislike for how much land they use, which, environmental and community-development effects aside, I'd think would also tend to make the game more expensive, plus, when they're so sprawling as they often are, I usually find them less-attractive aesthetically than a more-mixed natural/human environment.
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be a ton of courses really designed for shorter-distance games, which makes sense when most players are rocking space-age tech clubs, but does make getting involved in it challenging.
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be a ton of courses really designed for shorter-distance games, which makes sense when most players are rocking space-age tech clubs, but does make getting involved in it challenging.
You sort of have a few different classes of golf course.
- Par 3/Pitch & Putt. Should be able to reach the green from the tee on most or all holes.
- Executive. Smaller course with more par 3 holes and shorter par 4s. Less than 5,000 yards and makes for fast play.
- Championship. Full sized course that most people are familiar with. These have gotten longer as equipment has evolved.
There has been a resurgence in par 3 and executive course openings. Especially par 3 courses. I agree that a faster round that’s more about shot making than power is fun.
- Par 3/Pitch & Putt. Should be able to reach the green from the tee on most or all holes.
- Executive. Smaller course with more par 3 holes and shorter par 4s. Less than 5,000 yards and makes for fast play.
- Championship. Full sized course that most people are familiar with. These have gotten longer as equipment has evolved.
There has been a resurgence in par 3 and executive course openings. Especially par 3 courses. I agree that a faster round that’s more about shot making than power is fun.
With golf, there are other dimensions course designers could use to make the pro game less about distance. Tighter fairways, faster greens, etc.
They do. But there’s a line between arbitrary and fair. One of the things players want most is for outcomes to not be random/arbitrary and for skill to be judged fairly. That good shots are rewarded and bad shots penalized. The game already has a lot of that baked in so no need to make it more so.
TPC Sawgrass is the closest to a perfect pro course (PGA National second I guess) since it was designed specifically for it. I think a course perfectly optimized for pro play would be very different from what most people would expect.
TPC Sawgrass is the closest to a perfect pro course (PGA National second I guess) since it was designed specifically for it. I think a course perfectly optimized for pro play would be very different from what most people would expect.
Professional golf just rolled-back the ball they play with because distance is a problem.
Drivers have COR and volume limits, etc. Professionals are dropping blades and playing game improvement irons. Dropping 2i and playing 7w
Drivers have COR and volume limits, etc. Professionals are dropping blades and playing game improvement irons. Dropping 2i and playing 7w
My baseball head friends think the yankees stole signs for this game.
Everyone loves a "one dirty secret they don't want you to know about!" article. I wonder what it is about human psychology that we're drawn to these kinds of stories.
I think the media is attributing too much to the bats. I was at the Yankees game, and the wind was blowing straight out and hard. Many of the home runs I saw hit would have been fly outs on a day with more normal wind.
You're right, we should ban global warming too!
This seems to most help with guys who were hitting the ball most often not at the sweet spot. By moving the sweet spot to where they are hitting the ball, they might gain some power.
A bat needs to be round, a solid piece of wood, less than a certain length and less than a certain diameter. The actual shape is not defined.
A bat needs to be round, a solid piece of wood, less than a certain length and less than a certain diameter. The actual shape is not defined.
It's interesting to me, who is not a baseball player but a software engineer, that even at the level of professional sports the solution is not to just train the athletes to swing the ideal bat "correctly" but to redesign the bat to be sub-optimal but such that when the players use it "wrong" the right thing happens.
The physicists and swing coaches and trainers and teammates have probably been telling Volpe and Chisholm for almost 2 decades to make contact at the tip of the bat instead of closer to their hands. But the solution turned out to be adjusting the bat and not the swing. Fascinating.
I can sit in my office and deliberate on the location of buttons and indicators on the screen and come up with the objectively best arrangement per ISA 101 high-performance HMI standards, but if operators keep making messes because their intuition about that system is wrong, maybe I should just change the way the machine operates to match.
The physicists and swing coaches and trainers and teammates have probably been telling Volpe and Chisholm for almost 2 decades to make contact at the tip of the bat instead of closer to their hands. But the solution turned out to be adjusting the bat and not the swing. Fascinating.
I can sit in my office and deliberate on the location of buttons and indicators on the screen and come up with the objectively best arrangement per ISA 101 high-performance HMI standards, but if operators keep making messes because their intuition about that system is wrong, maybe I should just change the way the machine operates to match.
The biomechanics involved are insane. You are hitting a baseball-sized object (ha) moving at 90+ mph with massive break, often very late and over two axes, with something a couple of inches in diameter, and need to make decisions and react and adjust your swing path in a handful of milliseconds. And that’s just to make contact, let alone good contact, let alone contact that can find a patch of grass.
It’s the single hardest skill in competitive team sports in my opinion.
> Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium.
(Crash Davis)
It’s the single hardest skill in competitive team sports in my opinion.
> Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium.
(Crash Davis)
More stark is the difference between 700 and 800 OPS …
Volpe and Chisholm have honed and fine-tuned their swings over 20 years to produce results good enough to vault them into the top few hundred in the world at that particular craft.
They have a lot riding on that existing swing. Pro baseball is an unforgiving endeavor in which small edges add up over the course of a six month season, and the rewards for skill follow a power law distribution such that being just a bit better has millions of dollars attached to it, but becoming just a bit worse can also mean losing millions of dollars.
Changing swing path to get contact on a slightly different portion of the bat on a particular kind of pitch, possibly when looking for another pitch, perhaps just in particular counts, requires a lot of offseason work and carries no guarantees. The risk is similar to a from-scratch rewrite where the old code is thrown away; a very large portion of the time the resulting hitter ends up unplayable in the majors.
Tweaking the bat shape, on the other hand, is a micro-optimization akin to a bug fix whose rollout is behind a feature flag: undoing it is as easy at pulling a different bat from the rack.
They have a lot riding on that existing swing. Pro baseball is an unforgiving endeavor in which small edges add up over the course of a six month season, and the rewards for skill follow a power law distribution such that being just a bit better has millions of dollars attached to it, but becoming just a bit worse can also mean losing millions of dollars.
Changing swing path to get contact on a slightly different portion of the bat on a particular kind of pitch, possibly when looking for another pitch, perhaps just in particular counts, requires a lot of offseason work and carries no guarantees. The risk is similar to a from-scratch rewrite where the old code is thrown away; a very large portion of the time the resulting hitter ends up unplayable in the majors.
Tweaking the bat shape, on the other hand, is a micro-optimization akin to a bug fix whose rollout is behind a feature flag: undoing it is as easy at pulling a different bat from the rack.
Basically, these guys have such fine tuned biomechanics for hitting a baseball with just a few hundred milliseconds to decide wether to swing and where to swing, that trying to change their approach to hit further down the bat might ruin their hitting if they mess up. Far easier to shift the sweet spot.
Its not that they just need to get closer to the ball, their estimation if where a ball will strike their bat is slightly off.
Its not that they just need to get closer to the ball, their estimation if where a ball will strike their bat is slightly off.
It makes more sense if you consider the baseball player as a multimillion-dollar factory that cannot be brought down for maintenance.
I wish I could find it--I think it was on the Uber engineering blog--but I remember reading a post in which they talked about choosing a less "optimal"/"efficient" implementation in order to better cater to the available hiring pool: it's cheaper and easier to throw more money at hardware, than conjure up the necessary engineering talent
That resonated with me as I turned back around and gazed at the elegant, efficient, and inscrutable-and-difficult-to-debug Reactive-Extensions-based backend I was working on. Maybe Task<List<T>> would have been "better" after all
That resonated with me as I turned back around and gazed at the elegant, efficient, and inscrutable-and-difficult-to-debug Reactive-Extensions-based backend I was working on. Maybe Task<List<T>> would have been "better" after all
By moving the sweet spot to where they are hitting the ball, they might gain some power
Could we end up with custom bats for each player designed around where they tend to hit the ball?
Could we end up with custom bats for each player designed around where they tend to hit the ball?
guys already pick bats based on their height, it seems entirely reasonable everyone will do this. There probably is an optimal point to have that sweet spot at though so most hitters will probably try and stick close to it.
[deleted]
Why not? I'd assume similar things are already done in other sports like tennis, golf, hockey, ...
Should be easy with the analytics baseball has and could easily level up everyone making it fair. It would be interesting to see how they judge younger players though as they come through and inevitably can't afford custom bats (or can't afford new ones every time they adjust their mechanics) or don't have the analytics to make them valuable.
This is how modern cricket bats are designed, with the bulk of the wood located in the “sweet spot”.
In fact they have undergone a similar evolution. You can see that in the variations history on the Wikipedia page [0], as well as the photo of the old bats versus modern ones [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_bat#Variations
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_bat#/media/File%3AHi...
In fact they have undergone a similar evolution. You can see that in the variations history on the Wikipedia page [0], as well as the photo of the old bats versus modern ones [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_bat#Variations
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_bat#/media/File%3AHi...
My son - a baseball player - saw these in use this past week and noted:
“ That was dumb… They should have saved them for the playoffs…”
… and I can’t help but agree.
“ That was dumb… They should have saved them for the playoffs…”
… and I can’t help but agree.
You'd have to make the playoffs first
Boone can't even cheat well
Im glad this landed here so I can ask:
Physics nerds, would a “larger contact area” give the baseball more velocity?
I’ve been speculating that moving the mass lower effectively increases bat speed because its a “shorter bat”, but all of the commentary is acting like the larger barrel is “more power”.
I’d expect larger barrel increases odds of contact, not increased power transfer?
(But I also think of a car with bike diameter wheels and that could obviously change the power transfer)
Physics nerds, would a “larger contact area” give the baseball more velocity?
I’ve been speculating that moving the mass lower effectively increases bat speed because its a “shorter bat”, but all of the commentary is acting like the larger barrel is “more power”.
I’d expect larger barrel increases odds of contact, not increased power transfer?
(But I also think of a car with bike diameter wheels and that could obviously change the power transfer)
Some are saying it’s about the center of mass being closer to the point of contact
I’m not an expert but I think it has more to too with reducing vibrations along the bat and increasing the efficiency of energy transfer
Again not an expert
I’m not an expert but I think it has more to too with reducing vibrations along the bat and increasing the efficiency of energy transfer
Again not an expert
You are transferring rotational energy to the ball. Rotational energy is proportional to square of angular velocity. It is only linearly proportional to moment of inertia. So bat speed is more important than weight, all things considered.
From what I can tell this is more about making it easier to make solid contact. Even if it lowers the moment of inertia, it’s more important that the ball goes on a decent trajectory rather than e.g. directly into the ground. A bigger radius means the ball will be exit closer to the plane of the swing.
From what I can tell this is more about making it easier to make solid contact. Even if it lowers the moment of inertia, it’s more important that the ball goes on a decent trajectory rather than e.g. directly into the ground. A bigger radius means the ball will be exit closer to the plane of the swing.
Maybe it's just me, but if I worked for a school as close to Fenway as MIT, I sure wouldn't risk putting my name on custom bats for the Yankees!
Sports advancements like this are super cool. This reminds me of how Dick Fosbury changed the high jump in 1968.
It was nice of them to reveal this early in the season—I would have loved to see the drama if they revealed it during the postseason so other teams didn't have time to catch up.
It was nice of them to reveal this early in the season—I would have loved to see the drama if they revealed it during the postseason so other teams didn't have time to catch up.
I've always wondered what the technological development of F1 would look like in other sports. This feels pretty close.
It's actually fairly common. Other sibling comments have a lot of examples, but one I'd like to focus on is the swimsuit arms race in competitive swimming. It really got started with Speedo's LZR Racer suit at the 2008 Olympics, where 98% of swimming medals were won by someone wearing one of these suits.
However, there were serious issues with cost and accessibility. These suits cost a lot of money to develop and manufacture, which was passed on to the swim teams. The LZR Racer could cost $550 per suit, with each suit only lasting a handful of races before requiring replacement. This gave a huge advantage to wealthy teams and swimmers with good sponsorship deals, and talented swimmers without a lot of financial resources were left in the dust.
Then there's the basic question of "what skills do we want to measure and reward in this sport?" With swimming, it got to the point where races were won not in the pool, but in the R&D department of swimwear companies. The swimming organizing bodies felt that swimming competitions should be focused on the athletic ability of individual swimmers instead, so advanced swimsuits were banned.
Don't get me wrong, I like F1 a lot, and part of that is the cool cutting-edge technology the teams develop. But for most sports, heavy technological development doesn't lead to more exciting competition, it just adds barriers to entry.
However, there were serious issues with cost and accessibility. These suits cost a lot of money to develop and manufacture, which was passed on to the swim teams. The LZR Racer could cost $550 per suit, with each suit only lasting a handful of races before requiring replacement. This gave a huge advantage to wealthy teams and swimmers with good sponsorship deals, and talented swimmers without a lot of financial resources were left in the dust.
Then there's the basic question of "what skills do we want to measure and reward in this sport?" With swimming, it got to the point where races were won not in the pool, but in the R&D department of swimwear companies. The swimming organizing bodies felt that swimming competitions should be focused on the athletic ability of individual swimmers instead, so advanced swimsuits were banned.
Don't get me wrong, I like F1 a lot, and part of that is the cool cutting-edge technology the teams develop. But for most sports, heavy technological development doesn't lead to more exciting competition, it just adds barriers to entry.
> 98% of swimming medals were won by someone wearing one of these suits.
> This gave a huge advantage to ... teams and swimmers with ... sponsorship deals
Is the former caused by the latter or caused by performance enhancement?
Speedo sponsoring all likely medal winners into their new product seems like a reasonable explanation. Given that I've never heard of another brand, I assume speedo has a fairly large budget for sponsorships. I don't know anything at all about swimming though, just wanted to throw that out there.
> This gave a huge advantage to ... teams and swimmers with ... sponsorship deals
Is the former caused by the latter or caused by performance enhancement?
Speedo sponsoring all likely medal winners into their new product seems like a reasonable explanation. Given that I've never heard of another brand, I assume speedo has a fairly large budget for sponsorships. I don't know anything at all about swimming though, just wanted to throw that out there.
I don't understand how $550 a suit is an exorbitant cost.
You're paying coaches, nutritionists, doctors, managers, etc. What's an extra $550 every now and then?
Sure, maybe a less-well off swimmer can't afford to train with the suit in every practice swim like a wealthy team/swimmer can - but that wealthy team/swimmer already has advantages in everything else.
You're paying coaches, nutritionists, doctors, managers, etc. What's an extra $550 every now and then?
Sure, maybe a less-well off swimmer can't afford to train with the suit in every practice swim like a wealthy team/swimmer can - but that wealthy team/swimmer already has advantages in everything else.
When the National Hockey League allowed synthetic sticks (aluminum, carbon fibre) in the late 1980s there was a quick uptake as players began to learn how to get greater puck velocities over the old wooden ones. The cost to the game is the phenomena of the exploding stick, which happens far more often than with the old lumber ones and can directly affect the outcome of the game as the dejected player skates away from a missed opportunity.
They actually try to just block without the stick until the play ends and it looks rather silly. I've also seen them dive and punch the puck which doesn't seem like it should be legal but the rules seem to be limited to prohibiting grabbing the puck.
The rules for hand pass are:
> Rule 79 – Hand Pass > 79.1 Hand Pass - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, he has directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to gain an advantage, and subsequently possession and control of the puck is obtained by a player of the offending team, either directly or deflected off any player or official. For violations related to “closing his hand on the puck”, refer to Rule 67 – Handling Puck.
> 79.2 Defending Zone - Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone. The location of the puck when contacted by either the player making the hand pass or the player receiving the hand pass shall determine the zone it is in.
From the 2023-2024 rulebook [1], because it came up first in search. I don't think hand pass rules have changed. Basically, if your stick breaks when defending, you can go ahead and use your body to play and fling the puck to your teammates as appropriate (but not out of the defensive zone). OTOH, if your stick breaks when you're in the offensive zone, you better skate to the bench and either grab another stick or change out. Sometimes you'll see another player give their stick to the player with the broken stick and then go change.
[1] https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2023-24/2023-24R...
> Rule 79 – Hand Pass > 79.1 Hand Pass - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, he has directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to gain an advantage, and subsequently possession and control of the puck is obtained by a player of the offending team, either directly or deflected off any player or official. For violations related to “closing his hand on the puck”, refer to Rule 67 – Handling Puck.
> 79.2 Defending Zone - Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone. The location of the puck when contacted by either the player making the hand pass or the player receiving the hand pass shall determine the zone it is in.
From the 2023-2024 rulebook [1], because it came up first in search. I don't think hand pass rules have changed. Basically, if your stick breaks when defending, you can go ahead and use your body to play and fling the puck to your teammates as appropriate (but not out of the defensive zone). OTOH, if your stick breaks when you're in the offensive zone, you better skate to the bench and either grab another stick or change out. Sometimes you'll see another player give their stick to the player with the broken stick and then go change.
[1] https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2023-24/2023-24R...
> Basically, if your stick breaks when defending, you can go ahead and use your body to play and fling the puck to your teammates as appropriate
Isn't that specifically banned?
>> and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, he has directed the puck to a teammate [...] and subsequently possession and control of the puck is obtained by a player of the offending team
Isn't that specifically banned?
>> and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, he has directed the puck to a teammate [...] and subsequently possession and control of the puck is obtained by a player of the offending team
[deleted]
You missed the part about it being allowed in the defending zone.
A similar feel is pro cycling and the UCI. Cycling is much cheaper to innovate and test, so the UCI is constantly and aggressively banning new things. Unfortunately consumer bikes generally follow the UCI trends so we miss out on improvements, but the sport retains its “purity”. Very important though - the fastest approach in a Tour de France stage would be a carbon fiber recumbent for the flat sections, then switching to a super light (not aero) bike for large climbs, then switching to a heavier and super aero bike for descents.
Other easy tech that was banned is seats with a lip on the back, so you could push your butt up against it to drive more power. And the “puppy paws” handlebar position - more aero but banned outside of time trials.
Other easy tech that was banned is seats with a lip on the back, so you could push your butt up against it to drive more power. And the “puppy paws” handlebar position - more aero but banned outside of time trials.
I find the road cycling arms race really fascinating too, especially for tech focused on measurement rather than performance. See the 2021 ban on diabetic-style glucose monitors during races [1], the recent restriction of carbon monoxide-based hemoglobin testing [2,3], and the possible upcoming ban on breath sensors during races [4].
[1] https://www.bikeradar.com/news/uci-bans-supersapiens [2] https://www.uci.org/pressrelease/the-uci-bans-repeated-inhal... [3] https://www.bicycling.com/news/a61677020/carbon-monoxide-reb... [4] https://archive.ph/XMrVg
[1] https://www.bikeradar.com/news/uci-bans-supersapiens [2] https://www.uci.org/pressrelease/the-uci-bans-repeated-inhal... [3] https://www.bicycling.com/news/a61677020/carbon-monoxide-reb... [4] https://archive.ph/XMrVg
On the other hand, because there's a minimum weight for bikes, and frames and wheels are too light now, we get cool tech like motorized derailers and disc brakes
The Aluminium Cricket bat was controversial in the 70's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComBathttps://en.wikipedia.org...
I guess other (banned) examples would be the LZR swim suits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer) and the Nike Vaporfly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Vaporfly_and_Tokyo_2020_O...)
I think I am also right in saying that you can buy a road bike that is better than the ones permitted in the Tour de France.
I guess other (banned) examples would be the LZR swim suits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer) and the Nike Vaporfly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Vaporfly_and_Tokyo_2020_O...)
I think I am also right in saying that you can buy a road bike that is better than the ones permitted in the Tour de France.
> I think I am also right in saying that you can buy a road bike that is better than the ones permitted in the Tour de France.
Recumbent bikes have been banned since 1934[0]! Remarkable machines. I'd love to ride one in a civilized location one day.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle
Recumbent bikes have been banned since 1934[0]! Remarkable machines. I'd love to ride one in a civilized location one day.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle
A very small number of teams aren’t well funded, have sponsorship issues, or whatever else and actually run less than top end components. I don’t recall who but there were bikes at either TDF or vuelta maybe last year with group sets which you could’ve just gone to the store and bought better ones.
There are stories like this in marathon running shoes (something like 3D printed to the athlete's exact gait and basically last just a single race) and swimming (the michael phelps olympics dolphin suit).
I'm sure cycling and golf have been doing things like this since forever.
I'm sure cycling and golf have been doing things like this since forever.
Rowing had the sliding rigger boat which was banned in international competition within a year of first being used.
(In a normal racing rowing boat, the athlete sits on a sliding seat, while their shoes and the rigger with the oarlock are fixed to the boat. In the 1980s, boats were developed that had the shoes and rigger as a unit that slid, while the seat was fixed, which was more efficient as it meant that the boat hull and the athlete's mass moved together.)
On the other hand, first carbon-fibre oar shafts and later asymmetrical "hatchet" oar blades were adopted near-universally within a few years of their invention.
(In a normal racing rowing boat, the athlete sits on a sliding seat, while their shoes and the rigger with the oarlock are fixed to the boat. In the 1980s, boats were developed that had the shoes and rigger as a unit that slid, while the seat was fixed, which was more efficient as it meant that the boat hull and the athlete's mass moved together.)
On the other hand, first carbon-fibre oar shafts and later asymmetrical "hatchet" oar blades were adopted near-universally within a few years of their invention.
There are videos on YouTube of people using banned golf clubs that are super interesting - sand wedges with big holes in the club head so they slice through the sand, or comically large driver heads.
Golf actually adopted tech that probably ought to have been banned. Namely the modern ball and driver going from balata and persimmon. Pros went from driving it 260 yards to 325 sometimes longer and entire courses had to be redesigned as they would just trivially drive over fairway hazards and rough. Golf became a bomb and wedge game ever since as they can’t make certain historic courses terribly longer.
They are exploring the idea of rolling back the ball but the implications of that are endless.
They are exploring the idea of rolling back the ball but the implications of that are endless.
Golf should rate gear differently for different levels of play. Most golfers need these improvements as it makes recreational golf more enjoyable. But it makes the game too easy for professionals. Gear rated for their tournaments would be better I think. But there’s a rub.
Players like to endorse gear because people want to play what the best players play. They think it will make them better. So it’s hard to endorse gear you aren’t playing with.
Theres also data that suggests longer hitting guys will be more dominant with a rollback. I don’t know but I guess the nerds figured out how to optimize golf and it’s all about distance. The days of precession and artistry may be gone. I’m not sure how to defend against bomb and gouge and not sure if we should.
Players like to endorse gear because people want to play what the best players play. They think it will make them better. So it’s hard to endorse gear you aren’t playing with.
Theres also data that suggests longer hitting guys will be more dominant with a rollback. I don’t know but I guess the nerds figured out how to optimize golf and it’s all about distance. The days of precession and artistry may be gone. I’m not sure how to defend against bomb and gouge and not sure if we should.
As a kid, my all-time favorite Christmas present was a Gen-1x baseball bat. It was my first -3 bat, and promised a new metal alloy that would help me hit harder. Talk about sparking the imagination!
Without question, one of the high points of childhood was going out and trying to make that bat pop.
A lot of long-term baseball fans “get it” when it comes to creative tech in the game and it’s fun to see something new with bats.
The only thing I want to point out is that baseball (and all big sports) have always been a technological arms race and always will be. It’s just part of it.
Without question, one of the high points of childhood was going out and trying to make that bat pop.
A lot of long-term baseball fans “get it” when it comes to creative tech in the game and it’s fun to see something new with bats.
The only thing I want to point out is that baseball (and all big sports) have always been a technological arms race and always will be. It’s just part of it.
> Unfortunately, the MLB reviewed the torpedo bats after the game and somehow had zero issues with them?
"Unfortunately, the MLB reviewed the torpedo bats after the game and somehow had zero issues with them", isn't a question; adding a question mark just makes me read you with an obnoxious up-tone.
"Unfortunately, the MLB reviewed the torpedo bats after the game and somehow had zero issues with them", isn't a question; adding a question mark just makes me read you with an obnoxious up-tone.
The question is implied. "How could they possibly have done that?"
The wonderful thing about human language is that often context implies meaning. It’s more than the words on the page.
what's that got to do with what i said?
Are we entering the F1 stage of baseball and other sports? I bet there’s room for optimization with gloves and shoes and uniforms. I’m surprised teams haven’t made use of mobile recovery units when visiting away teams (instead of hotels). And there’s still gotta be ways to work around fatigue related to travel and time zone changes. I’m still surprised how basic and limited home team locker rooms can be. There are probably cool tech and social/psych solutions.
They’ve been Moneyballing the game for a while with analytics to the point that the MLB had to ban certain defensive techniques. (Analytics says he always hits it there, so put a bunch of defensive players there.)
> I bet there’s room for optimization with gloves
Maybe so, but the demand is just not there with so many play ending up as home runs or strikeouts.
Maybe so, but the demand is just not there with so many play ending up as home runs or strikeouts.
Definitely already begun.
Players diets, sleep schedules, low altitude flights…
Players diets, sleep schedules, low altitude flights…
Did it really take 125+ years for someone to realize the bat does not need to evenly taper? This seems like some seriously low lying fruit.
Different bat profiles have been around forever, and many players have their own custom profiles that they like.
I think the key innovation that enabled this new profile is the accuracy and quality of data being collected.
Edit: Here's an article talking about some of the bat tracking technology that MLB has deployed in recent years: https://technology.mlblogs.com/introducing-statcast-2023-hig...
I think the key innovation that enabled this new profile is the accuracy and quality of data being collected.
Edit: Here's an article talking about some of the bat tracking technology that MLB has deployed in recent years: https://technology.mlblogs.com/introducing-statcast-2023-hig...
No, different bats have been around forever, Babe Ruth's bats looks like a log compared to modern bats. However shifting the taper based on where a player gets most of their hits based on advanced tracking of their hit location is new.
its less about even taper and more about moving weight/center of mass around. Youth bats have been doing that for quite a while. Camwood bats is a great example of moving weight around. In their case, its a training bat.
From the title I was expecting genetically modified Bats that could fly out and retrieve foul balls
I'm genuinely surprised this hasn't been done before now.
Ya, it's one of those simple design improvements that seem obvious once you see it, but clearly wasn't obvious because it took so long for someone to think of it.
The granny free throw and the belly putter are both better tools, but they are uncool. We can add the torpedo bat to that list.
Belly putting is anchoring to belly? That’s not legal.
I suspect this may result in more pitches away to these batters so they have to make contact on the narrower end of the bat.
I.e. it's a move that may well have a counter move.
I.e. it's a move that may well have a counter move.
Folks will start to use longer bats then and crowd the plate. Of course that'll be countered with more inside pitching.
>Folks will start to use longer bats then and crowd the plate.
(Rule 3.02 states that bats cannot be more than 2.61 inches in diameter and 42 inches in length.) [https://www.mlb.com/news/baseball-bat-history#:~:text=(Rule%...]
Change we can see is better than change behind the scenes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juiced_ball_theory, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/juiced-baseballs
Baseball is the king of misleading small samples. It’s usually best not to jump to any conclusions as the article does so early in the season (ban them! After 3 games?!). There is a lot of randomness in the data.
And if the season proves that these bats are indeed juicier than others? Probably MLB will let it lie. Offense is down enough already and all of the recent rules changes are intended to support offense.
And if the season proves that these bats are indeed juicier than others? Probably MLB will let it lie. Offense is down enough already and all of the recent rules changes are intended to support offense.
Have they been using them in spring training? That's still early but a much better sample size if so.
Spring training at bats aren’t equivalent—hitters and pitchers aren’t approaching an at bat as they do in the regular season. But it’s no matter as we’re going to need to see a lot more plate appearances before the stats would be reliable indicators. Fangraphs[0] has a good guide to sample size. Slugging, for example, isn’t stable until 320 at bats. We’ll check back in mid July or so.
Also, we haven’t given pitchers a chance to adapt. Perhaps pitching outside (now a thinner part of the bat) will take the force out of the hit leading to softer contact.
0: https://library.fangraphs.com/principles/sample-size/
Also, we haven’t given pitchers a chance to adapt. Perhaps pitching outside (now a thinner part of the bat) will take the force out of the hit leading to softer contact.
0: https://library.fangraphs.com/principles/sample-size/
Interesting outcome of Saturday's game -- most of the Yankee's runs came as a result of their 9 homers, and they let up 9 runs -- which, defensively, is not great. The Brewers scored an average 4.78 runs per game in 2024.
Kinda suggests the Yankees aren't all great at playing baseball, except for hitting home runs, but that's all that really matters.
Kinda suggests the Yankees aren't all great at playing baseball, except for hitting home runs, but that's all that really matters.
The defense in that game was pretty bad. Five of the nine Brewers runs scored due to errors, and it was five separate errors. The game yesterday went much better, defensively.
Love this!
I helped make wooden oars, that were used by competitors in international rowing competitions, that had blades designed by someone at MIT, back in the day, on a computer(golley gee), but we made them by hand, and as they were, only wood, they were legal for use, and all the champions used them.
we also made oars for "bostan bay bantry boat rigs" that won while crewed by inner city kids,
we cheated a bit, and snuck some carbon fibre in
but nobody even knew what that was, 18' oars, 2 kids to each, 16 oars per boat, plus the tiller.
ash for the majors was sometimes sourced from granpa's farm in Pa, which he was proud of, take me into the woods to.show how strait they were, and how the deer had et, everything down to the dirt.
next up, would be expoloring how a little texture
from a poorly finnished bat, might add a little energy transfer to the ball
Rowing family here : what’s the current state of the art in oars?
what we were building was radical @ the time, and may still be.
The design of the blades was essentialy flat on one side, and had a more complicated profile on the back
the shaft was an I beam made from strait grained spruce, capped with ash, and then capped again in beach through the oar locks, and we snuck carbon fibre between the spruce and ash.
the longest oars were 18', and it was possible to put a handle under the bench, and a shop stand under the oar lock and go out and bounce up and down on the blades 15' out from the shop stand
we also made many oars for the international dorry races, which is regulated to "what could have been
built useing traditional materials and methods"
which ours were, cept for the cfd bieng done at mit
we also made paddles, and handles, but paddles do better now, in strait carbon, but oars need flex, and work as a spring
we had a couple of raceing skiffs at the shop and those sure are a hoot
I’ve passed this on to the coach. She’s pretty traditional, but we’ll see what comes of it! Update: she’s impressed.
Shouldn’t pitchers be able to adapt to this? If the sweet spot has moved, just pitch where the sweet spot isn’t.
It would be fun to see how far you could hit a baseball or golf ball if you could make the bat/club out of any material. Or how fast someone could swim if you could wear anything (like those suits that were banned from the olympics) and things like that.
Here is what I have learned from people who religiously follow various kind of sports which intersect with technology:
A new tech will be allowed to stand if everyone can take advantage of it equally AND it does not make the sport too boring.
Gotta get that ad and sponsor money.
A new tech will be allowed to stand if everyone can take advantage of it equally AND it does not make the sport too boring.
Gotta get that ad and sponsor money.
Not a baseball fan, but I’m curious if the MLB will go the F1 route (ie ban the “hack”) or embrace it as it will probably make for more entertaining games. Home runs are a good thing, right?
After my initial surprise that teams have their own bats (presumably they don't have their own balls, though?), F1 was the first thing that came to mind. I don't follow F1 closely but I understand there is a constant struggle between allowing constructors to innovate (and thus having the constructors' championship in addition to drivers') and keeping the sport both fun and safe.
Sounds like those hammer head tennis rackets. Strange that it didn’t happen decades ago. And nothing wrong with such innovation just making game more fast and powerful.
The typical baseball bat's balance - very different from say a sword's - has always felt wrong to me, and i've just chalked it up to my not being a baseball player and thus not understanding. The new shape seems to improve the balance toward the centuries established for swords, etc.
The typical baseball bat's balance - very different from say a sword's - has always felt wrong to me, and i've just chalked it up to my not being a baseball player and thus not understanding. The new shape seems to improve the balance toward the centuries established for swords, etc.
I think that’s a good thing. As an outsider who only recently started following baseball I can say that what makes the game quite boring is a difficulty mismatch: throwing the ball is easy, hitting it is quite hard (many MLB players have batting averages of 0.250 or below) which means that a typical baseball game consists of many throws, many strike outs and only occasional hits an runs.
I'm wary this will change baseball for the worse. Already, we've seen the power game become more and more dominant since the steroid era. You see less of the base running and nickel and dime baseball. It's all about home runs. If it were up to me, they would make the bats deader, not more lively.
So much this - the game is better when the focus is on getting the ball in play. Likewise, I prefer the WNBA these days because it's a game of fundamentals rather than the 3-point shootout of the NBA.
Hasn't equipment been evolving since the beginning of the game? Why would this be out of line with that?
Adding yet another thing for neurodivergent fans of baseball to argue over is fun! That said, some of this must be statistical anomaly. Let’s give it at least a few hundred at-bats per player using it.
If you look at an exhibit of bats over time, you will see that size, weight, width and shape have all varied quite a bit between players even if on the same team and era, and this makes me skeptical that some new shape is really going to invalidate every baseball stadium’s length and field overnight. If it does, MLB will outlaw it. See aluminum bats for example.
I’m not saying MIT physicists can’t help hitters with going deep, I bet they can. But given the tools at their disposal - bat shape in this case - I’m skeptical that they are going to create a new era of hitting for all. I guess we’ll see soon.
If you look at an exhibit of bats over time, you will see that size, weight, width and shape have all varied quite a bit between players even if on the same team and era, and this makes me skeptical that some new shape is really going to invalidate every baseball stadium’s length and field overnight. If it does, MLB will outlaw it. See aluminum bats for example.
I’m not saying MIT physicists can’t help hitters with going deep, I bet they can. But given the tools at their disposal - bat shape in this case - I’m skeptical that they are going to create a new era of hitting for all. I guess we’ll see soon.
> Let’s give it at least a few hundred at-bats per player using it.
Indeed, and lets also test against other ''new'' bat designs and materials i.e. graphene, carbon fibre, etc. so that we can hopefully ban them pre-emptively if they show improvements that are statistically above the latest trends in human effort and talent.
Indeed, and lets also test against other ''new'' bat designs and materials i.e. graphene, carbon fibre, etc. so that we can hopefully ban them pre-emptively if they show improvements that are statistically above the latest trends in human effort and talent.
Contrary to the implication of the comment you’re replying to, MLB has always mandated bats be made of solid wood. Aluminum bats have never been allowed and have never been used. Bats made of other materials like the ones you mention would also not be allowed. This new “torpedo” bat is made of solid wood, just in a new shape.
Thanks for the clarification. https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1freiuv/recalling... this April fool’s video will give fun nostalgia. I guess the most accurate thing to say is that MLB at least thought about it for a second, long enough to get Jose Canseco to pretend it was happening.
Innovations are always fun and disruptive at first, until the competition gets wise and adapts.
By concentrating weight in the center of the bat hitters will be less able to protect the outside and inside of the zone.
I don't expect to see the torpedos past June.
By concentrating weight in the center of the bat hitters will be less able to protect the outside and inside of the zone.
I don't expect to see the torpedos past June.
[deleted]
Since golf has had all sorts of changes in clubs over the years and baseball hadn't, I had assumed the only reason this hadn't been done years ago is because the rules were very prescriptive.
I'm sure there have been bat changes all along the way, and if the Yankees hadn't scored 20 runs that day we wouldn't be reading about this either.
Man, I got a really sweet bat on clearance the last time around they banned some new design. It’s great for the batting cage. Keep an eye on this one, might be $10 out the door next year.
That immediately reminded me of George Constanza suggesting Yankees players should wear cotton at the ballpark to improve their performance.
Elly De La Cruz mashed two 400+ plus bombs to dead center with a torpedo bat today. Whatever helps the Reds hit homers I’m fine with.
Hard to imagine whatever advantage this is affording won't be nullified by pitchers within a season. The arms race is getting insane.
This morning on the radio, I heard this opinion (paraphrasing): "Misses become tips, tips become slices, slices become hits..."
Cool but this article is AI slop. It's borderline unreadable, though I guess it looks great to Google.
I caught on when I realized the same sentence was being written for the fifth time.
I actually don't think this article is AI slop but instead a text length minimum so Google thinks there's enough content there. Now, I _could_ be an AI wrote it with this rule in mind, but the repetition feels more like the author said what they wanted to say and had to meet a word count quota, so they kept saying the same thing. At least this style of article has existed for many years before AI slop was even possible.
OP here, and I also hate AI slop so I had a bit of a bad feeling about it at first, but then felt that the payload was more important than the packaging. Submitting ''pure'' content to HN is getting increasingly difficult.
The higher pitch velocity made something like this inevitable. Remember when a pitcher who threw 95 was a big deal?
Ready for games at Fenway to be 90% HRs
Next season everyone has this, and then what? All the historical stats are busted.
This article is a great example of why baseball is such an incredibly boring sport.
Would anyone care if he just used a shorter bat that didn’t get thinner?
given the rules (solid wood, max 2.61" and 42")...
I wonder if they couldn't have non-round profiles. Might be able to steer the ball, like a golf driver or add spin like some sort of racket.
I wonder if they couldn't have non-round profiles. Might be able to steer the ball, like a golf driver or add spin like some sort of racket.
From the rulebook [0]:
> The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 2.61 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.
[0] https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2025-off...
> The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 2.61 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.
[0] https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2025-off...
My first thought is that there must be something very wrong about this. They have moved the skill of hitting from the player to the "skill" of the bat. I am surprised MLB allowed it. I don't see it too far different than corking the bat.
Pretty typical for pro sports especially golf or swimming. The batmaker is probably pleased all the competitive amateurs are going to replace the bat in the closet with the premium bat shape and I’m sure they worked closely with MLB officials on this. No one polices this type of collusion.
if it leads to more home runs i'm against it.
if it leads to more solid hits and plays in the infield, i'm for it.
unclear which one, i look forward to finding out more.
if it leads to more solid hits and plays in the infield, i'm for it.
unclear which one, i look forward to finding out more.
Wow, that author is one grumpy fellow.
[deleted]
Oh no! Baseball might get slightly interesting! Quick! Ban the heretics!
Cool. Make it open-source for the rest of the league.
Otherwise this is just more proof that Yankees fans are the same kind of people who would cheer when the casino wins another slot machine pull.
Otherwise this is just more proof that Yankees fans are the same kind of people who would cheer when the casino wins another slot machine pull.
Open source what exactly? It's a piece of wood turned on a lathe. Not an atom bomb
The concept is out there -- different players would have different tendencies that would require slightly different adjustments.
This will make the team owners either do their own analysis, or come up with yet more excuses to hide the fact that while they could afford it, they won't.
This will make the team owners either do their own analysis, or come up with yet more excuses to hide the fact that while they could afford it, they won't.
Love this comment.
Good. Baseball isn't a serious spectator sport. It's only interesting to statisticians. Now there will be more work for them to do, adjusting for bat type in addition to stadium dimensions, rule changes, etc. to compare players across eras. And more HRs might make it a little more interesting to spectators as long as the OBP doesn't increase to prolong an already too long game.
> Good. Baseball isn't a serious spectator sport. It's only interesting to statisticians
What makes a spectator sport "serious"?
The average MLB game had almost 30,000 spectators in the 2024 season[1]. That's a lot of statisticians.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2024/10/01/mlb-atten...
What makes a spectator sport "serious"?
The average MLB game had almost 30,000 spectators in the 2024 season[1]. That's a lot of statisticians.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2024/10/01/mlb-atten...
You can put a basketball game on anywhere in the world, and people will watch it, even if they haven't watched basketball before. People only watch baseball out of tradition. MLB didn't even have a play clock until 2023, letting batters step out of the box at whim and create even longer periods with no action.
[deleted]
> You can put a basketball game on anywhere in the world, and people will watch it, even if they haven't watched basketball before
What the heck is this confident assertion based on?
What the heck is this confident assertion based on?
From showing basketball to people who haven't watched a basketball game before.
But what if I have watched basketball and I don't watch it. Basketball is a boring game until there's 5 minutes left.
And then it takes 30 minutes to play the last 5 minutes... ugh.
Baseball is twice as long and boring to most people all the way through, so we seem to be in agreement.
Uhh basketball has plenty of issues, like 6 timeouts in the last two minutes, way to many 3s, traveling everywhere that make it hard to watch.
How do three pointers or uncalled fouls make a game hard to watch? If anything, they make it easier for a first time watcher. Timeouts in the last few minutes happen only when the game is close, prolonging the suspense. If the game isn't close, it ends faster.
Just checkin’
Source: Trust me bro
Baseball is a different spectator sport. You don't have to pay attention to it 90% of the time. If you're looking for a game to pay attention to constantly, then yeah baseball's not ideal. But if you're looking for a game to put on in the background, or go to a ballpark and have a picnic, then baseball's the perfect sport. Also, regarding your last sentence, the new pitch clock rules in 2023 have helped a lot, bringing average game time from ~3 hours to ~2.5 hours, which seems like a small difference but has helped a surprising amount
I like to say that baseball goes perfectly with radio: it can be enjoyed as a low bitrate entertainment.
That said there’s actually a fair amount going on during any one play; who’s warming up in the pen? Where are fielders shifting to? What’s the lead off look like? television and radio both edit most of this out to focus on the pitcher or the hitter, which I think makes baseball less interesting to watch or listen to than to attend. Of course you might want to bring some extra entertainment to the park, just in case
That said there’s actually a fair amount going on during any one play; who’s warming up in the pen? Where are fielders shifting to? What’s the lead off look like? television and radio both edit most of this out to focus on the pitcher or the hitter, which I think makes baseball less interesting to watch or listen to than to attend. Of course you might want to bring some extra entertainment to the park, just in case
My favorite thread here. In essence making the case for baseball in that you don’t have to pay attention and it’s even better when you can’t see it, only hear about it. But it’s all true. Having a game on the radio outside with a group of friends having a good time not really paying it too much mind and then everyone alert during a moment of built up tension and release is what summers are all about.
baseball is a very complex game. That's what makes it so great to spectate. The footwork, the defensive organization, the dynamics between pitchers and hitters. Its expansive. There's so much to learn about, there's so many opportunities for unique play.
The statistical record might require a whole new set of asterisks for Torpedo-using batters.
Hitting is really hard. If you feel up to it, and can find a public batting cage near you that has a fast pitch machine (usually maxes out 75-85mph which is 20+ mph less than your typical MLB fastball), give it a shot. When you hit the ball away from the sweet spot, especially on the parts closer to your hands, it really freaking hurts and throws off subsequent swings.
If the few players who are using this bat tend to hit that spot naturally, it makes a lot of sense to modify the bat to accommodate it, within the rules like they've done here. Hitting is super, super difficult especially today with how far we're pushing pitchers. Love seeing them try to innovate.
Plus, reminder, most of the team isn't using it. Judge clobbered the ball that day with his normal bat. Brewer's pitching is injured, and the starter that day was a Yankee last year and the team is intimately familiar with his game.