←back to thread

MLB says Yankees’ new “torpedo bats” are legal and likely coming

(thelibertyline.com)
302 points cf100clunk | 5 comments | 31 Mar 25 15:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.996s | source
Show context
kaycebasques ◴[31 Mar 25 16:03 UTC] No.43536546[source]▶
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

replies(9): >>43536774 #>>43536821 #>>43536921 #>>43537319 #>>43537857 #>>43539516 #>>43539777 #>>43540404 #>>43540699 #
happyopossum ◴[31 Mar 25 16:25 UTC] No.43536821[source]▶
> 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.

replies(4): >>43536931 #>>43536976 #>>43537031 #>>43537099 #
kaycebasques ◴[31 Mar 25 16:38 UTC] No.43536976[source]▶
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…

replies(1): >>43537583 #
1. philwelch ◴[31 Mar 25 17:36 UTC] No.43537583[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43539486 #
2. bsder ◴[31 Mar 25 20:22 UTC] No.43539486[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>43540501 #
3. MisterBastahrd ◴[31 Mar 25 22:08 UTC] No.43540501[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43542484 #
4. DrFalkyn ◴[01 Apr 25 03:19 UTC] No.43542484{3}[source]▶
Why can’t teams just defend the three better?
replies(1): >>43542864 #
5. philwelch ◴[01 Apr 25 04:31 UTC] No.43542864{4}[source]▶
It’s effectively illegal based on how they call shooting fouls and ban hand-checking.