vivii ૮₍ ˶ᵔ ᵕ ᵔ˶₎ა ♡
@sunshinevvn.bsky.social
let’s go red sox 👏👏 👏👏👏
i know that looking at evenly spaced frames like this gets ruined by spin decay but there’s still definitely reorientation happening on the sinker
November 8, 2025 at 12:33 AM
i know that looking at evenly spaced frames like this gets ruined by spin decay but there’s still definitely reorientation happening on the sinker
skubal sinker
November 8, 2025 at 12:33 AM
skubal sinker
skubal slider
November 8, 2025 at 12:33 AM
skubal slider
the cease looks good for about 3 frames and then starts to lose it
November 7, 2025 at 11:50 PM
the cease looks good for about 3 frames and then starts to lose it
here i grabbed every n frames, with n chosen so that frame 1 and frame 1+n have the same seam orientation. this changeup looks like it’s translating when i move through the pictures
November 7, 2025 at 11:50 PM
here i grabbed every n frames, with n chosen so that frame 1 and frame 1+n have the same seam orientation. this changeup looks like it’s translating when i move through the pictures
cease slider, not so much
November 7, 2025 at 11:50 PM
cease slider, not so much
@lephysichien.bsky.social degrom changeup, very stable
November 7, 2025 at 11:50 PM
@lephysichien.bsky.social degrom changeup, very stable
a secret third source of catch prob that i have puts it at 10%, and while i try my best to factor in the wall properly there’s a fundamental issue due to ball tracking getting funky the farther out from home (and higher above the ground) it gets
i think it hits the wall here and should be a solid 0%
i think it hits the wall here and should be a solid 0%
September 23, 2025 at 10:05 PM
a secret third source of catch prob that i have puts it at 10%, and while i try my best to factor in the wall properly there’s a fundamental issue due to ball tracking getting funky the farther out from home (and higher above the ground) it gets
i think it hits the wall here and should be a solid 0%
i think it hits the wall here and should be a solid 0%
yes probably. EV-wise (which i should’ve just shown in the first place) it looks more like a simple shift downwards
March 30, 2025 at 4:17 PM
yes probably. EV-wise (which i should’ve just shown in the first place) it looks more like a simple shift downwards
so something interesting i saw last night is that keeping the max width the same 2.625” but scaling the length of the bat, the EV benefit only appears with the 33” bat
March 30, 2025 at 4:06 PM
so something interesting i saw last night is that keeping the max width the same 2.625” but scaling the length of the bat, the EV benefit only appears with the 33” bat
on twitter someone shared this paper which used a genetic algorithm to search for “optimal designs” in a FEM package. they allowed non circular cross sections which look fun. i haven’t read the paper but i have a hunch these would be very prone to breaking
mdpi-res.com/d_attachment...
mdpi-res.com/d_attachment...
March 30, 2025 at 5:37 AM
on twitter someone shared this paper which used a genetic algorithm to search for “optimal designs” in a FEM package. they allowed non circular cross sections which look fun. i haven’t read the paper but i have a hunch these would be very prone to breaking
mdpi-res.com/d_attachment...
mdpi-res.com/d_attachment...
i took the profile by counting pixels in this. i assumed 33” and 30 oz. just a guess but being exact isn’t really the point
March 30, 2025 at 12:55 AM
i took the profile by counting pixels in this. i assumed 33” and 30 oz. just a guess but being exact isn’t really the point
here r the normal modes. the fundamental isn’t affected very much, higher order modes are affected more but they contribute less
March 30, 2025 at 12:55 AM
here r the normal modes. the fundamental isn’t affected very much, higher order modes are affected more but they contribute less
my simulations agree that jazz’s sweet spot is shifted down, but nothing crazy!
March 30, 2025 at 12:55 AM
my simulations agree that jazz’s sweet spot is shifted down, but nothing crazy!
The data clearly does see a steep drop off, but I think that’s purely sample size.
being an inch off can drop q by 0.01, 2 inches off can drop it by 0.05.
how many 100 mph pitches are hit within 1” of the perfect position, at the perfect plane-matching attack angle?
being an inch off can drop q by 0.01, 2 inches off can drop it by 0.05.
how many 100 mph pitches are hit within 1” of the perfect position, at the perfect plane-matching attack angle?
March 13, 2025 at 6:50 PM
The data clearly does see a steep drop off, but I think that’s purely sample size.
being an inch off can drop q by 0.01, 2 inches off can drop it by 0.05.
how many 100 mph pitches are hit within 1” of the perfect position, at the perfect plane-matching attack angle?
being an inch off can drop q by 0.01, 2 inches off can drop it by 0.05.
how many 100 mph pitches are hit within 1” of the perfect position, at the perfect plane-matching attack angle?
This is my final, "all effects included" plot from simulations, including bat rotation, linearly variable COR, and bat vibrations
March 13, 2025 at 6:23 PM
This is my final, "all effects included" plot from simulations, including bat rotation, linearly variable COR, and bat vibrations
@tangotiger.com the COR decrease is linear. The plot above shows one experiment, this one here shows another from the paper "Static and Dynamic Properties of Various Baseballs" by Shonn P. Hendee et al.
I haven't found an experiment which goes up to real in-game collision speeds
I haven't found an experiment which goes up to real in-game collision speeds
March 13, 2025 at 5:23 PM
@tangotiger.com the COR decrease is linear. The plot above shows one experiment, this one here shows another from the paper "Static and Dynamic Properties of Various Baseballs" by Shonn P. Hendee et al.
I haven't found an experiment which goes up to real in-game collision speeds
I haven't found an experiment which goes up to real in-game collision speeds
we’re so back
February 23, 2025 at 8:18 PM
we’re so back
in my (n=46) data set i got an average of 2.3” above, std dev of 0.9.
I read this from a Nathan paper (but I can’t actually find the info in citations 2 or 19) saying 1” above
I read this from a Nathan paper (but I can’t actually find the info in citations 2 or 19) saying 1” above
January 31, 2025 at 6:45 PM
in my (n=46) data set i got an average of 2.3” above, std dev of 0.9.
I read this from a Nathan paper (but I can’t actually find the info in citations 2 or 19) saying 1” above
I read this from a Nathan paper (but I can’t actually find the info in citations 2 or 19) saying 1” above
when you compare swings with the same statcast bat speed, the bat actually has less energy when it’s rotating about a higher pivot, but still generating higher EVs nevertheless.
we’re still only talking about ~0.5 mph of EV for reasonable shifts in pivot point though, maybe 1 mph if ur lucky.
we’re still only talking about ~0.5 mph of EV for reasonable shifts in pivot point though, maybe 1 mph if ur lucky.
January 31, 2025 at 3:05 AM
when you compare swings with the same statcast bat speed, the bat actually has less energy when it’s rotating about a higher pivot, but still generating higher EVs nevertheless.
we’re still only talking about ~0.5 mph of EV for reasonable shifts in pivot point though, maybe 1 mph if ur lucky.
we’re still only talking about ~0.5 mph of EV for reasonable shifts in pivot point though, maybe 1 mph if ur lucky.
more neat bat-ball collision stuff
if two swings have the same reported bat speed on baseball savant, but one has a higher pivot point to its rotation, that one will generate higher max EVs (and it'll do so slightly farther up the barrel)
if two swings have the same reported bat speed on baseball savant, but one has a higher pivot point to its rotation, that one will generate higher max EVs (and it'll do so slightly farther up the barrel)
January 31, 2025 at 3:05 AM
more neat bat-ball collision stuff
if two swings have the same reported bat speed on baseball savant, but one has a higher pivot point to its rotation, that one will generate higher max EVs (and it'll do so slightly farther up the barrel)
if two swings have the same reported bat speed on baseball savant, but one has a higher pivot point to its rotation, that one will generate higher max EVs (and it'll do so slightly farther up the barrel)
the guy whose work I referenced heavily to figure this stuff out will be there too, so i’m feeling like
January 28, 2025 at 11:25 PM
the guy whose work I referenced heavily to figure this stuff out will be there too, so i’m feeling like
because i haven’t posted it here yet, this is something i have been working on and got “working” recently, the flow of energy through body segments during a swing.
i don’t trust it’s totally correct yet but it’s something like that, and looks pretty cool
i don’t trust it’s totally correct yet but it’s something like that, and looks pretty cool
January 28, 2025 at 9:30 PM
because i haven’t posted it here yet, this is something i have been working on and got “working” recently, the flow of energy through body segments during a swing.
i don’t trust it’s totally correct yet but it’s something like that, and looks pretty cool
i don’t trust it’s totally correct yet but it’s something like that, and looks pretty cool