1 / 52

Modern Technologies for Tracking the Baseball

Modern Technologies for Tracking the Baseball. Alan Nathan University of Illinois and Complete Game Consulting. Here’s what I’ll talk about:. Brief review of baseball aerodynamics The new technologies Camera-based systems: PITCHf/x and HITf/x : Doppler radar-based systems: TrackMan

rafe
Download Presentation

Modern Technologies for Tracking the Baseball

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Modern Technologies forTracking the Baseball Alan Nathan University of Illinois and Complete Game Consulting

  2. Here’s what I’ll talk about: • Brief review of baseball aerodynamics • The new technologies • Camera-based systems: • PITCHf/x and HITf/x: • Doppler radar-based systems: • TrackMan • Using these technologies for analysis • Lots of examples

  3. Review of Baseball Aerodynamics Forces on a Spinning Baseball in Flight FM • Drag slows ball down • Magnus + mg deflects ball from straight line FD mg See Michael Richmond’s talk

  4. Example: Bonds’ record home run

  5. Familiar (and not so familiar) Effects: • Drag • Fly balls don’t travel as far (factor of ~2!) • Pitched balls lose ~10% • Magnus • Movement on pitches (many examples later) • Batted balls • Backspin  longer fly balls; tricky popups • Topspin  nosedive on line drives; tricky grounders • Sidespin  balls curve toward foul pole

  6. Marv White, Physics, UIUC, 1969 Image, courtesy of Sportvision PITCHf/x and HITf/x Two video cameras @60 fps • “high home” and “high first” • tracks every pitch in every MLB ballpark • data publicly available • tracks initial trajectory of batted ball • data not publicly available

  7. PITCHf/x and HITf/x • Used for TV broadcasts, MLB Gameday, analysis,… • See http://www.sportvision.com/baseball.html

  8. Camera Registration • T(x,y,z)  screen coordinates (u,v) • 7 parameters needed for T • Camera location (xC,yC,zC) • Camera orientation (pan, tilt, roll) • Magnification (focal length of zoom lens)

  9. Details of Tracking Process • Each camera image determines LOP • If cameras were synchronized • LOP intersection  (x,y,z) • Cameras not synchronized • Need a clever idea

  10. Sportvision’s Clever Idea • Physics  trajectory is smooth • Parametrize smooth trajectory mathematically • e.g., constant acceleration (9 parameters) • Adjust parameters to fit pixel data • We then have full trajectory

  11. Possible Parametrizations • Constant acceleration • x(t) = x0 +vx0t + ½axt2(etc. for y,z) • Solve simultaneous linear equations for 9P • This is scheme used in PITCHf/x • Constant “jerk” • x(t) = x0 +vx0t + ½ax0t2 +1/6jxt3 • Solve simultaneous linear equations for 12P • “exact” • Non-linear least-squares fit to get 9P* x0,y0,z0,vx0,vy0,vz0,Cd,Cl,

  12. 9P vs. Exact Trajectory vy(t) x(t) Many studies like this show that 9P works extremely well

  13. z vertically up All useful parameters derived from 9P • Release point NOT measured • x0,z0 are locations at y0=50 ft • easily extrapolated to 55 ft • Derived parameters • v0, vf = speed at y=50,HP • px, pz: = location at y=HP • pfxx, pfxz = movement y=40-HP • spin axis = related to direction of movement • Cd, Cl related to vf/v0 , pfx • Spin rpm is NOT measured • but approximate value inferred from pfx values

  14. PITCHf/x Precison:A Monte Carlo Simulation • Start with exact trajectories • Use cameras to get pixels • Add random “noise” (1 pixel rms) • Get 9P and derived quantities • Compare with the exact quantities

  15. v0 pfx_x px x0 exact-inferred • Central values close to exact  9P works well • 1 pixel rms  rms on following quantities: v0 : 0.23 mph ; x0, z0 : 0.4” ; px, pz: 0.7” ; pfx_x, pfx_z: 1.6”

  16. Some Comments on Registration • In-game monitors • “blue-field” vs. actual field • LOP error

  17. Registration Studies in Progress • Could accuracy be improved with additional “pole” calibrations? • Can the data themselves be used to recalibrate the cameras? • An example follows

  18. 188 187 188* 187 Drag Coefficient: Anaheim, 2009 Camera registrations changed between days 187,188

  19. Some Remarks on Hitf/x • Pixel data fit to constant velocity (6P) • Not enough of trajectory to do any better • Impact location inferred from intersection of pitched and batted ball trajectories • BBS and VLA are systematically low due to drag and gravity • Not a big effect • One could correct for it fairly easily • Balls hitting ground in field of view are somewhat problematic

  20. Phased Array Doppler Radar: TrackMan

  21. Measurement principle I Doppler Frequency fD = Doppler Shift = FTX - FRX = 2FTX(VR/c) Example:FTX = 10.5 GHz; c=0.67 Gmph; VR=90 mph fD = 2.82 kHz

  22. Batted ball Bat Bounce Pitched ball Frequency/Velocity vs. Time Doppler shift Radial velocity Time 

  23. Measurement principle II Measurement principle II Phase Shift Phase Shift Phase shift = 2DFTXsin()/c

  24. Measurement principle II 2 1-2: Vertical angle 1 1-3: Horizontal angle 3 Phase Shift

  25. Spin Measurement principle Doppler frequency modulated by rotation frequency  sidebands

  26. Summary of Technique • Doppler radar measures radial velocity • VR R(t) = distance of ball from radar • …provided initial R is known • 3-detector array to measure phase • two angles (t), (t)  location on sphere • R(t), (t), (t) gives full 3D trajectory • Spin modulates to give sidebands • spin frequency 

  27. Additional Details • Need location and orientation of TM device (just like PFX) • Need R(0)

  28. TrackMan Capabilities I • Full pitched ball trajectory • Everything PITCHf/x gives plus…. • Actual release point  perceived velocity • Total spin (including “gyro” component) • Many more points on the trajectory • But given smooth trajectory, additional points are not necessarily useful

  29. Comment about Spin • Tracking (either TM or PFX) only determines component of spin in the x-z plane • No deflection due to y (gyro) component • Many pitches have a gyro component • Especially slider • Combining TrackMan total spin with the indirect determination of x-z component gives 3D spin axis • …a potentially useful analysis tool

  30. TrackMan Capabilities II • Full batted ball trajectory, including… • Batted ball speed, launch & spray angles • Equivalent to HITf/x • Landing point coordinates at ground level and hang time • Equivalent to Hittracker • Initial spin • and more, if you want it

  31. TrackMan Data Quality I • Comparisons with Pitchf/x • Pitch-by-pitch comparisons from May 2010 in StL and Bos look excellent • Comparable in precision and accuracy to PFX • Our Red Sox friends could tell us more, if we ask them really nicely! 

  32. TrackMan Data Quality II • My Safeco Field experiment, October 2008 • Project fly balls with pitching machine • Track with TrackMan • Measure initial velocity and spin with high-speed video camera • Measure landing point with a very long tape measure (200-300 ft)

  33. Landing Point Comparison TrackMan high by about 2.5 ft.: Could be R0 issue

  34. Spin Comparison

  35. Summary of Safeco Results • Initial velocity vector excellent • Initial spin mostly excellent • But sometimes off by an integer factor (?) • Landing point correlates well • But systematic difference ~2.5 ft

  36. One final point about batted balls • We need a convenient way to tabulate batted ball trajectories • Current TM scheme: • Initial velocity vector • Landing point and hang time, both extrapolated to field level • Constant jerk (12P) might work

  37. Some Examples of Analysis • Pitched ball analysis • Dan Brooks will do much more • Batted ball analysis

  38. Ex 2 Ubaldo Jimenez Pitching at High Altitude vf/v0 "Every time that I come here to San Diego, it's always good. Everything moves different. The breaking ball is really nasty, and my fastball moves a lot. So I love it here." Denver Denver Denver Denver

  39. Denver vf/v0 San Diego San Diego Denver Ex 2 Ubaldo Jimenez Pitching at High Altitude vf/v0 Denver Denver Denver Denver

  40. Ex 3: Effect of batted ball speed and launch angle on fly balls: TrackMan from StL, 2009 R vs. v0 R vs. 0 USEFUL BENCHMARK 400 ft @ 103 mph ~5 ft per mph peaks @ 25o-35o

  41. V0>90 BABIP HR Ex 4: What Constitutes a Well-Hit Ball? Hitf/x from April 2009 w/o home runs Basis for outcome-independent batting metrics

  42. Combining HITf/x with Hittracker • HITf/x  (v0,,) • Hittracker  (xf,yf,zf,T) • Together  full trajectory • HFX+HTT determine unique Cd, b, s • Full trajectory numerically computed • T  b • horizontal distance and T  Cd • sideways deflection  s

  43. My Safeco Experiment w/TrackMan How well does this work? Test experimentally (Safeco expt) It works amazingly well!

  44. Some examples of HFX+HTT Analysis • Windy Yankee Stadium? • Quantifying the Coors Field effect • Home runs and batted ball speed

  45. (379,20,5.2) HITf/x + hittracker Analysis: The “carry” of a fly ball • Motivation: does the ball carry especially well in the new Yankee Stadium? • “carry” ≡ (actual distance)/(vacuum distance) • for same initial conditions

  46. HITf/x + Hittracker Analysis:4354 HR from 2009 Denver Cleveland Yankee Stadium

  47. SF Denver Phoenix Average Relative Air Density

  48. The Coors Effect ~26 ft

  49. Phoenix vs. SF Phoenix +5.5 ft SF -5.5 ft

  50. Home Runs and BBS • 4% reduction in BBS • 20 ft reduction in fly ball distance (~5%) • 50% reduction in home runs • NOTE: typical of NCAA reduction with new bats

More Related