←back to thread

302 points cf100clunk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.281s | source
Show context
jparishy ◴[] 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 #
scoofy ◴[] No.43540397[source]
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.

replies(26): >>43540447 #>>43540549 #>>43540582 #>>43540648 #>>43540740 #>>43541012 #>>43541100 #>>43541312 #>>43541369 #>>43541592 #>>43541599 #>>43541683 #>>43541721 #>>43541955 #>>43542112 #>>43542311 #>>43542777 #>>43542802 #>>43543587 #>>43544525 #>>43545491 #>>43545616 #>>43546400 #>>43546419 #>>43550521 #>>43558620 #
its_down_again ◴[] No.43542802[source]
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.

replies(1): >>43542964 #
1. xhevahir ◴[] No.43542964[source]
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.