Most active commenters
  • dylan604(9)
  • impossiblefork(5)
  • triceratops(4)
  • next_xibalba(3)

←back to thread

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

(thelibertyline.com)
302 points cf100clunk | 55 comments | 31 Mar 25 15:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
jparishy ◴[31 Mar 25 16:04 UTC] No.43536564[source]▶
I think it's quite cool (disclaimer: I am indeed a dirty Yankees fan)

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.

replies(13): >>43536733 #>>43537013 #>>43538820 #>>43538935 #>>43539111 #>>43539767 #>>43540222 #>>43540288 #>>43540397 #>>43541756 #>>43541894 #>>43542261 #>>43546096 #
fishpen0 ◴[31 Mar 25 16:19 UTC] No.43536733[source]▶
If every player ends up with a bat custom tailored to their swing this will get very interesting.
replies(4): >>43536865 #>>43537007 #>>43537055 #>>43538586 #
1. jorvi ◴[31 Mar 25 19:08 UTC] No.43538586[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>43538639 #>>43539028 #>>43539137 #
2. next_xibalba ◴[31 Mar 25 19:13 UTC] No.43538639[source]▶
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.
replies(15): >>43538712 #>>43538717 #>>43538789 #>>43538821 #>>43538826 #>>43538860 #>>43538946 #>>43539710 #>>43539766 #>>43539864 #>>43540033 #>>43540041 #>>43540052 #>>43541128 #>>43541510 #
3. rglullis ◴[31 Mar 25 19:19 UTC] No.43538712[source]▶
> dangerously experimental PEDs

Would you be willing to be the guinea pig?

replies(2): >>43539736 #>>43539803 #
4. nine_k ◴[31 Mar 25 19:20 UTC] No.43538717[source]▶
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.

5. burkaman ◴[31 Mar 25 19:25 UTC] No.43538789[source]▶
https://www.enhanced.com/
6. zappb ◴[31 Mar 25 19:27 UTC] No.43538821[source]▶
Formula 1 is supposed to be like that except without the drugs. It’s a competition for both the racers and the manufacturers.
replies(2): >>43538911 #>>43541088 #
7. pinko ◴[31 Mar 25 19:28 UTC] No.43538826[source]▶
Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdG-iTilWU
8. demosthanos ◴[31 Mar 25 19:31 UTC] No.43538860[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>43539136 #>>43539236 #
9. lesuorac ◴[31 Mar 25 19:35 UTC] No.43538911{3}[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>43539286 #>>43539436 #>>43539813 #
10. mjevans ◴[31 Mar 25 19:38 UTC] No.43538946[source]▶
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.

11. hnburnsy ◴[31 Mar 25 19:45 UTC] No.43539028[source]▶
>where they ban optimization

Always wondered why the NFL doesn't ban sticky gloves.

replies(2): >>43540305 #>>43543055 #
12. kevinventullo ◴[31 Mar 25 19:54 UTC] No.43539136{3}[source]▶
On the discussion at hand, is there reason to believe this new bat shape will be too expensive for other teams to copy?
replies(1): >>43539975 #
13. nradov ◴[31 Mar 25 19:54 UTC] No.43539137[source]▶
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...

14. facile3232 ◴[31 Mar 25 20:02 UTC] No.43539236{3}[source]▶
> 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?

replies(1): >>43539538 #
15. creaturemachine ◴[31 Mar 25 20:06 UTC] No.43539286{4}[source]▶
It's never been the same without the cigarette & booze sponsors.
16. bluGill ◴[31 Mar 25 20:18 UTC] No.43539436{4}[source]▶
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.
17. pinkmuffinere ◴[31 Mar 25 20:26 UTC] No.43539538{4}[source]▶
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?
replies(1): >>43539592 #
18. facile3232 ◴[31 Mar 25 20:30 UTC] No.43539592{5}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43540118 #
19. impossiblefork ◴[31 Mar 25 20:40 UTC] No.43539710[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>43539772 #>>43539842 #
20. next_xibalba ◴[31 Mar 25 20:42 UTC] No.43539736{3}[source]▶
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?

replies(1): >>43541163 #
21. tshaddox ◴[31 Mar 25 20:45 UTC] No.43539766[source]▶
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.
22. dylan604 ◴[31 Mar 25 20:45 UTC] No.43539772{3}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43539970 #
23. dylan604 ◴[31 Mar 25 20:48 UTC] No.43539803{3}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43540021 #
24. dagw ◴[31 Mar 25 20:49 UTC] No.43539813{4}[source]▶
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.
25. next_xibalba ◴[31 Mar 25 20:52 UTC] No.43539842{3}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43539902 #
26. mb7733 ◴[31 Mar 25 20:54 UTC] No.43539864[source]▶
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.

27. impossiblefork ◴[31 Mar 25 20:57 UTC] No.43539902{4}[source]▶
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.

28. impossiblefork ◴[31 Mar 25 21:06 UTC] No.43539970{4}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43540066 #
29. demosthanos ◴[31 Mar 25 21:06 UTC] No.43539975{4}[source]▶
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.
30. triceratops ◴[31 Mar 25 21:11 UTC] No.43540021{4}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43540131 #
31. triceratops ◴[31 Mar 25 21:12 UTC] No.43540033[source]▶
> 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.

32. tayo42 ◴[31 Mar 25 21:13 UTC] No.43540041[source]▶
> 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

replies(1): >>43540556 #
33. dagw ◴[31 Mar 25 21:14 UTC] No.43540052[source]▶
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.

34. dylan604 ◴[31 Mar 25 21:16 UTC] No.43540066{5}[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>43540534 #
35. pinkmuffinere ◴[31 Mar 25 21:21 UTC] No.43540118{6}[source]▶
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

36. dylan604 ◴[31 Mar 25 21:23 UTC] No.43540131{5}[source]▶
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.
replies(4): >>43540525 #>>43540704 #>>43540763 #>>43541537 #
37. WillPostForFood ◴[31 Mar 25 21:43 UTC] No.43540305[source]▶
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

38. triceratops ◴[31 Mar 25 22:11 UTC] No.43540525{6}[source]▶
It's a slippery slope from there to "the children yearn for the mines".
replies(1): >>43541093 #
39. impossiblefork ◴[31 Mar 25 22:12 UTC] No.43540534{6}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43541111 #
40. umbra07 ◴[31 Mar 25 22:15 UTC] No.43540556{3}[source]▶
why do you think they're on dangerously experimental PEDs as opposed to the standard PED profile in combat sports?
41. munificent ◴[31 Mar 25 22:36 UTC] No.43540704{6}[source]▶
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."
42. liamwire ◴[31 Mar 25 22:43 UTC] No.43540763{6}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43540807 #
43. dylan604 ◴[31 Mar 25 22:47 UTC] No.43540807{7}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43540919 #
44. triceratops ◴[31 Mar 25 22:59 UTC] No.43540919{8}[source]▶
You're still only thinking about direct effects, not second-order effects. Keep workin' that noggin you'll get there.
replies(1): >>43541075 #
45. dylan604 ◴[31 Mar 25 23:21 UTC] No.43541075{9}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43541889 #
46. hibikir ◴[31 Mar 25 23:22 UTC] No.43541088{3}[source]▶
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

47. dylan604 ◴[31 Mar 25 23:23 UTC] No.43541093{7}[source]▶
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
48. dylan604 ◴[31 Mar 25 23:24 UTC] No.43541111{7}[source]▶
Well, if we're limiting the rules of sports in any country based on what a European PM does...
replies(1): >>43544212 #
49. DrFalkyn ◴[31 Mar 25 23:26 UTC] No.43541128[source]▶
It’s called bodybuilding
50. rglullis ◴[31 Mar 25 23:30 UTC] No.43541163{4}[source]▶
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.

51. nkrisc ◴[01 Apr 25 00:21 UTC] No.43541510[source]▶
> 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.

52. AngryData ◴[01 Apr 25 00:25 UTC] No.43541537{6}[source]▶
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?
53. Someone ◴[01 Apr 25 05:11 UTC] No.43543055[source]▶
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?
54. impossiblefork ◴[01 Apr 25 08:29 UTC] No.43544212{8}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43546179 #
55. dylan604 ◴[01 Apr 25 12:51 UTC] No.43546179{9}[source]▶
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.