Time Gunnar's triple

[24fps]

26 minutes ago, Filmstudy said:

Briefly, here is the method I use with a DirecTV DVR for all sorts of timing in football analysis:

1. From a recording on your DVR, hit pause at some point shortly before the ball is released by the pitcher

2. While still on pause, use the FF button to advance the video 1 "frame" at a time.  On 1080i, the screen is redrawn 30 times per second, so each click is 1/30th of a second.  On 720p or 1080p, it's 60 frames per second.  So timing should be accurate to either 1/30th (0.033) or 1/60th (0.017) of a second

3. Advance the video to the point of contact--It is easy to go forward, but difficult to go backward, so you need to advance slowly to fin the closest point

4. From that point, count the number of FF clicks until Gunnar hits 3rd base, you should actually be able to see the image move with each click, so it's easier to count these than you might think

5. Divide clicks counted by 30 to get seconds for the event.  For example, if you get 322 clicks, it's 10 and 22/30 seconds (10.73 sec).  This assumes the MASN broadcast is in 1080i.

I've been using this method for more than 15 years and you can confirm calibration with an NFL game where the clock is on the screen.  Since you don't have that in baseball, you just have to know whether it's 30 or 60 clicks per second and you'll know that by whether it's an 11 or 22-second triple.

1080i video is redrawn a half frame (field) at 60 times per second.  Progressive footage like 1080p is 30 whole frames per second but often converted to interlaced format for transmission.

If you are doing this on an ongoing basis, here's a suggestion: download the free version of one of the numerous non-linear editors out there like Avid or DaVinci Resolve and throw the clip on a timeline for your measurement.  Manually clicking through hundreds of frames seems like it would be needlessly cumbersome not to mention slow.

 

[Remember The Alomar]

5 hours ago, elextrano8 said:

This seems unnecessarily nasty, Drungo.

I thought it was funny, honestly. The best part of this place is when some random guy you've been posting with since you were 18 yells at you. 

[Malike]

11 minutes ago, Remember The Alomar said:

I thought it was funny, honestly. The best part of this place is when some random guy you've been posting with since you were 18 yells at you. 

I'll give you the upvote so you have a nice green arrow next to the red one for daring to say that Drungo's joke wasn't nasty! For someone with an Archer avatar they have really thin skin, I dig the irony.

[Remember The Alomar]

15 minutes ago, Malike said:

I'll give you the upvote so you have a nice green arrow next to the red one for daring to say that Drungo's joke wasn't nasty! For someone with an Archer avatar they have really thin skin, I dig the irony.

I can take being made fun of for perhaps being too passionate about manipulated media—especially since nothing will top the mockery I received for saying the Orioles ruined Chris Waters career for letting him throw 104 pitches in his debut. Thankfully, I think that one was lost to time. 

[Filmstudy]

1 hour ago, 24fps said:

1080i video is redrawn a half frame (field) at 60 times per second.  Progressive footage like 1080p is 30 whole frames per second but often converted to interlaced format for transmission.

If you are doing this on an ongoing basis, here's a suggestion: download the free version of one of the numerous non-linear editors out there like Avid or DaVinci Resolve and throw the clip on a timeline for your measurement.  Manually clicking through hundreds of frames seems like it would be needlessly cumbersome not to mention slow.

 

It's not bad at all in terms of the clicking.  I probably do it 3-5 times a game for marginal ATS calls on pass plays (for which I only need to click 90 times/3 sec) and it takes 30 seconds or less each time.  That said, I'm sure folks who have more facility with the video software could go through the process you described in less time.

Looking at what you're saying above, it seems like I should have 60 clicks per second, but the CBS broadcasts are 1080i and are exactly 30 clicks per second while SNF (1080p?) and Fox (720p, I believe) broadcasts are 60 clicks per second (easily calibratable to the on-screen clock).  Does this make sense with your understanding of how the video is transmitted and captured by a DirecTV (or other) DVR?

[interloper]

25 minutes ago, Remember The Alomar said:

I can take being made fun of for perhaps being too passionate about manipulated media—especially since nothing will top the mockery I received for saying the Orioles ruined Chris Waters career for letting him throw 104 pitches in his debut. Thankfully, I think that one was lost to time. 

Heh. Still one of my favorite random Oriole debuts. They couldn't touch him. He'll always have that one start. 

Edited April 26 by interloper

[24fps]

8 minutes ago, Filmstudy said:

It's not bad at all in terms of the clicking.  I probably do it 3-5 times a game for marginal ATS calls on pass plays (for which I only need to click 90 times/3 sec) and it takes 30 seconds or less each time.  That said, I'm sure folks who have more facility with the video software could go through the process you described in less time.

Looking at what you're saying above, it seems like I should have 60 clicks per second, but the CBS broadcasts are 1080i and are exactly 30 clicks per second while SNF (1080p?) and Fox (720p, I believe) broadcasts are 60 clicks per second (easily calibratable to the on-screen clock).  Does this make sense with your understanding of how the video is transmitted and captured by a DirecTV (or other) DVR?

I would have to know the transmission chain for each network and whether satellites were involved and then I would have to consult an actual broadcast engineer to fill in the (no doubt significant) holes so I'm not the person to lead you really deeply into the weeds.  But I don't think that matters for your purposes.  You're correct that 30 frames or 60 fields per second is the standard for US television, so just go with your established workflow.
 

[Pickles]

Bump for Jorge's triple tonight.

I timed it multiple times and averaged out at 10.6, but I'm a notoriously fast timer.

But he was moving.

[OriolesMagic83]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

Bump for Jorge's triple tonight.

I timed it multiple times and averaged out at 10.6, but I'm a notoriously fast timer.

But he was moving.

I think the fielder played it well.  Lots of times, a triple will take a weird bounce but this bounced right to the fielder and Mateo beat it easily.

[Frobby]

Remember this thread?   Time these two and let me know what you get.

Jorge Mateo races for first triple of season | 05/17/2024 | MLB.com

Gunnar Henderson's RBI triple | 05/17/2024 | MLB.com

[Natty]

10 hours ago, Frobby said:

Remember this thread?   Time these two and let me know what you get.

Jorge Mateo races for first triple of season | 05/17/2024 | MLB.com

Gunnar Henderson's RBI triple | 05/17/2024 | MLB.com

Mateo was faster.

[Pickles]

8 minutes ago, Natty said:

Mateo was faster.

I have him as a tenth of a second faster.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Pickles said:

I have him as a tenth of a second faster.

So did I but I had them both very fast.  Mateo maybe 10.50 - .55, Gunnar 10.60 -.65?   That seems awfully fast and I may be a touch slow on the draw starting the timer or a touch fast stopping it.   That’s why I asked others to time them.  

Anyway, those were fun to watch.  
 

[Malike]

I'll need to check this later, my original thought was Gunnar doesn't get a triple on the ball Mateo hit, but now I'm not sure. I had Mateo 3x at 10.45 and Gunnar at 10.64.

Found this interesting.

Edited May 18 by Malike

[Pickles]

23 minutes ago, Frobby said:

So did I but I had them both very fast.  Mateo maybe 10.50 - .55, Gunnar 10.60 -.65?   That seems awfully fast and I may be a touch slow on the draw starting the timer or a touch fast stopping it.   That’s why I asked others to time them.  

Anyway, those were fun to watch.  
 

I had it at 10.6 for Jorge and 10.7 for Gunnar.

I haven't been able to find it, and so it must be buried in an unrelated thread, but we had a similar conversation last year about a triple Jorge hit.

IIRC, I had timed Jorge at 10.8 on a triple, and people pushed back saying that would be the fastest triple in the statcast era, and 24fps started talking about broadcast television, etc.

But no doubt, they can both really fly.

Jorge coming into to second and turning it up as he decides to go for 3 was a sight to behold.

He's a pretty good baseball player, but I would like to see the alternative world where grew up playing American football.