1. Provide “distinct” proof 2. Title it as the antithesis
>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.
If the only constraints are material and weight, it should be possible to create a design that performs even better for this purpose. But at some point it stops looking like a baseball bat.
And it compares equal weight bats. If the torpedo bat allows you to use a lighter bat, that will increase your swing speed.
Ahh, finally. A definitive answer!
not really ignored when it's in the article. the researchers themselves are quoted saying the results are incredibly close.
