Yeah, it's like just ignoring the actual conclusions. I mean, it's easier to hit and then it hits less hard, which is actually good because professional baseball players generally hit it out of the park when they get a good hit. So the conclusion is actually completely opposite what the title of the article is - it's not the same. It is a substantial improvement.
The moment I saw “slight difference in location of sweet spot” I knew the bat would have tremendous real-world impact even if the robots couldn’t hit any better.
i'm sorry but where are you seeing this completely opposite and substantial improvement?
>The team found nearly identical performance for the torpedo and standard bats except that the sweet spot for the torpedo bat was a half inch farther from the bat tip than the standard bat.
>“It was actually pretty phenomenal how close they were,” said Smith.
>For some players who like to hit the ball closer in, the torpedo bat might be a better option for them
some players with some batting characteristics may find this better? is that what you are referring to? What part of the article disputes this at all, let alone concludes the opposite? Is it the researcher's own quote? I really don't understand your objection here. It seems to be based on your own intuition about how players "generally" hit balls. But the researchers themselves have presented their own data and conclusions pretty clearly here.
