Introduction
The 2025 MLB season saw the emergence of a technological curiosity: the "Torpedo Bat," designed by MIT physicist and Miami Marlins field coordinator Aaron Leanhardt. Used spectacularly by Yankees players during a record-breaking home run streak, the bat challenges the traditional design of hitting equipment.
With its mass concentrated near the hands instead of the barrel, it deviates radically from traditional end-loaded models.
While the mechanical advantages—such as reduced inertia and improved maneuverability—are evident, results vary greatly among players. Why do some see improved performance, while others find the bat uncomfortable or inefficient?
The answer lies not only in the technology, but in how each athlete naturally organizes movement. By combining advances in biomechanics with the framework of motor preferences—developed by Volodalen and other researchers—we gain deeper insight into how individual coordination influences compatibility with a given tool.
Innovative Weight Distribution: Less Inertia, More Control
Unlike traditional bats, where mass is concentrated toward the barrel, thef Torpedo Bat shifts the weight toward the hitter’s hands. This reduces distal moment of inertia and centrifugal force during the swing. The result is greater control of the bat path, more precise orientation at contact, and potentially less joint stress on the wrists and elbows.
Theoretical benefits include:
- Greater stability and consistency at contact
- Reduced joint loading
- Increased adaptability for short (two-strike) swings
- More efficient energy transfer, if used properly
However, these advantages are not experienced uniformly. This leads us to a critical but often overlooked factor: each player’s unique movement strategy.
Motor Preferences: The Hidden Variable
Volodalen’s research on motor preferences shows that athletes fall along distinct coordination spectrums. One of the most relevant here is the Axial vs. Large profile.
Other studies complement this approach. For instance, Bernstein (1967) introduced the concept of reducing degrees of freedom in movement, highlighting how some individuals stabilize proximal segments to free the distal ones—and vice versa. Hogan (1985) and other researchers in robotics and motor control modeled movement strategies based on proximal vs. distal load management, emphasizing the impact of mass distribution on coordination.
- Axial profiles initiate and control movement from their center. Their limbs stay close to the body’s axis, favoring compact, reactive actions. The Torpedo Bat aligns naturally with their preference for proximal control and minimizes distal load.
- Large profiles, in contrast, seek amplitude and extension. They use longer arcs and rely on distal mass to generate speed, leveraging elastic rebound and centrifugal force. For them, the Torpedo Bat may feel restrictive, reducing the leverage they’re accustomed to.
These differences are neither good nor bad—they simply reflect how the nervous system, morphology, and experience shape motor solutions.
Synergies and Sensorimotor Adaptation
According to motor control theorists such as Latash and Newell, each individual develops stable "motor synergies" to meet performance demands. Over time, these synergies become optimized, forming personal coordination styles.
Altering a bat’s inertia disrupts those synergies. Athletes with strong sensorimotor adaptability—or whose profile matches the new dynamic (e.g., Axial)—will adjust quickly. Others may need a longer integration phase, or may never fully adapt.
What Sensors Don’t Show: Grip Strength as the Missing Link
Today’s technology—Blast Motion, Rapsodo, Hawk-Eye—measures bat speed, launch angle, and exit velocity. But one critical variable is often ignored: grip strength.
Grip strength directly influences swing stability, control at impact, and energy transfer efficiency. Two players may have the same bat speed, yet the one with superior grip control will produce better contact and real-world power.
With its proximal mass, the Torpedo Bat reduces distal stabilization demands, potentially benefiting Axial profiles or players with lower grip strength.
Studies have already linked grip strength to precision, injury risk, and neuromuscular readiness. It deserves more attention in performance analysis.
Beyond Preferences: The Brain and Tool Interaction
Motor preferences are generally stable, but athletes remain adaptable. The brain is capable of motor learning—especially when the tool respects the body’s biomechanical logic. Research on neuroplasticity confirms that repeated use of a new tool can reconfigure coordination. However, this reconfiguration will still respect motor preferences to some degree, since those preferences exist to make movement efficient.
If the bat aligns with the athlete’s preference, learning is fast and intuitive. If not, learning becomes more cognitive, requires more repetition, and may hinder short-term performance.
Conclusion: Innovation Must Serve the Individual
The Torpedo Bat embodies a growing trend in sports: innovation not only in equipment design but in how we understand the athlete.
Performance is not purely physical. It is biological, neurological, and individual.
For coaches, scouts, and analysts, this means that equipment adoption should not be dictated by averages, but by the motor profile of each player.
A swing is not just a gesture—it’s an expression of the body’s unique logic. Understanding that logic opens the path to truly individualized performance.
Scientific References
- Gindre, C., & Volodalen Research Team. (2023). Mind to Move: Individual motor preferences and neuromechanical variability. Volodalen Institute.
- Latash, M. L. (2008). Synergy. Oxford University Press.
- Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control.
- Proske, U., & Gandevia, S. C. (2012). The proprioceptive senses: their roles in signaling body shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiological Reviews, 92(4), 1651–1697.
- Escamilla, R. F., et al. (2007). Kinematic and kinetic comparisons between baseball pitching and sports movements. JOSPT, 37(11), 708–718.
- Shim, J. K., et al. (2008). The coordination of fingertip forces during precision grip in baseball players. Experimental Brain Research, 184(4), 515–526.
- Karni, A., et al. (1995). Functional MRI evidence for adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning. Nature, 377(6545), 155–158.
- Bernstein, N. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon Press.
- Hogan, N. (1985). The mechanics of multi-joint posture and movement control. Biological Cybernetics, 52(5), 315–331.