vivii ૮₍ ˶ᵔ ᵕ ᵔ˶₎ა ♡'s Avatar

vivii ૮₍ ˶ᵔ ᵕ ᵔ˶₎ა ♡

@sunshinevvn.bsky.social

let’s go red sox 👏👏 👏👏👏

1,519 Followers  |  223 Following  |  282 Posts  |  Joined: 13.06.2023  |  2.6252

Latest posts by sunshinevvn.bsky.social on Bluesky

Post image

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%

23.09.2025 22:05 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

i made a website for my new fielding win probability stat, with a leaderboard & individual play breakdowns :)

situational-fielding.streamlit.app

13.06.2025 02:16 — 👍 16    🔁 2    💬 0    📌 0

an extremely easy task for a video game developer tbh

01.05.2025 19:04 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

find the fraction of ball flight time the ray cast from the fielder’s head to the ball intersects the lights or the sun and toss it into the formula

01.05.2025 19:03 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

i refuse to believe the TJ is cause of the scrider. i refuse to believe it’s uniquely bad for ur ucl

20.04.2025 23:47 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

inb4 someone tells me some relief pitcher i don’t know on like, the giants throws a screwball 10% of the time

20.04.2025 23:40 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

had to delete a tongue-in-cheek devin williams hate post cause it reached 1000 likes.
critical support to the only screwballer in the league even if he refuses to recognize that he is

20.04.2025 23:39 — 👍 4    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

we should have a double first base but not with all of those weird college rules, just treat it as one big base

20.04.2025 23:35 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

posting the “i had code for collision efficiency” image first

30.03.2025 16:21 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0
Post image

yes probably. EV-wise (which i should’ve just shown in the first place) it looks more like a simple shift downwards

30.03.2025 16:17 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

love it!
i calculated the MOI ratio to be in the 98% range, which i think might be able to get you something like 0.5 to 1 mph extra bat speed, approximating it as all circular motion and equal KE.

30.03.2025 16:15 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0
Post image Post image

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

30.03.2025 16:06 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0
Post image

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...

30.03.2025 05:37 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

this bat’s MOI about the COM is 97% that of a normal shaped bat with the same length & mass, 98% around a more realistic axis.
that’s rooughly comparable to changing the mass by 1 oz

30.03.2025 05:06 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

oh that’s a good point. i used the length of the bat to set the scale, which i assumed to be 33” (which was just a guess based of a google search for “jazz chisholm bat”)
doing that i get a max width of 2.8”
32” gives 2.7” and 31” gives 2.63”
so that suggests it’s actually 31”

30.03.2025 04:08 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 2    📌 0

i mean, i spent weeks coding a hammer and a golden nail showed up out of nowhere

30.03.2025 01:36 — 👍 19    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0
30.03.2025 01:33 — 👍 36    🔁 6    💬 4    📌 1
Post image

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

30.03.2025 00:55 — 👍 5    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 1
Post image

here r the normal modes. the fundamental isn’t affected very much, higher order modes are affected more but they contribute less

30.03.2025 00:55 — 👍 5    🔁 0    💬 2    📌 0
Post image

my simulations agree that jazz’s sweet spot is shifted down, but nothing crazy!

30.03.2025 00:55 — 👍 24    🔁 2    💬 1    📌 2

i don’t think those will get up to the right impact velocities because the pitch speed is too low

13.03.2025 19:01 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 1

i think it would be way more interesting if COR falls off rapidly at high impact velo, I kinda hope that’s true.
The best way to know is to find someone with an air cannon that can get the ball up to that speed. that would be way easier than trying to simulate it from first principles

13.03.2025 18:53 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0
Post image

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?

13.03.2025 18:50 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

The rotation-included line has more similar curvature to your plot, but the no-rotation line matches up a lot better with the magnitudes

13.03.2025 18:26 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0
Post image

This is my final, "all effects included" plot from simulations, including bat rotation, linearly variable COR, and bat vibrations

13.03.2025 18:23 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 2    📌 0

well I guess 150mph isn't too bad

13.03.2025 17:24 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0
Post image

@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

13.03.2025 17:23 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 2    📌 0

well idk, maybe it’s linear enough in the range people throw stuff

04.03.2025 01:48 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

not only is 100 a magic number, the diminishing returns with more velo hurt the entertainment factor even more

04.03.2025 01:43 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0
Post image

we’re so back

23.02.2025 20:18 — 👍 14    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 0

@sunshinevvn is following 20 prominent accounts